Share this:

Like this:

Related

105 Responses

A friend of mine and I drove 6.5 hours to watch the debate. Barker spewed the exact same arguments from his debate with Kyle Butt. Same verses, same “contradictions,” and same fallacies. It’s amazing that Barker has been corrected on the Hebrew word for kill/murder for over 15 years, yet continues to use it. I’m convinced that Barker has no regard for truth, but only that which increases his fame and popularity.

Yes, it was a long drive but well worth it. I’ve always wanted to witness a live debate.

After the debate, my friend and I approached Barker and asked him why he continues to use the exact same Bible verses and supposed contradictions when he’s been corrected on those verses for over a decade! His response was: “its new to the audience. Other people haven’t heard it.” Really Dan? So are we to disregard truth for the convenience of bringing fourth a “new” argument to those who have not heard? Does that make any sense? As I stated, Dan has no regard for what is true, only what furthers his fame.

I further challenged Dan on the big bang theory. In his debate with Dr. Phil Fernandes, Dan was asked:

Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?

Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang would be one.

Fernandes: But we’re trying to argue about the big bang so my question again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions – not assumptions – for some empirical evidence for explosions producing states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you’re arguing…

Barker: Yeah, I can think of one.

Fernandes: You’re arguing in a circle if you’re saying…

Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some milk so I drive to the store. There’s an explosion happening in that engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.

Fernandes: You’d have to agree that an engine is designed by intelligence.

Barker: Yeah, I think so.

Fernandes: So, it’s a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you.

Obviously Dan did not give a response. When I appoached Dan and asked him this question and reminded him of his response with Fernandes, he said “yes, that would be an example of intelligent design [referring to the engine].” That was all I got. I did not hear an example of a bang leading to more states of complexity.

In the end, we know that Dan hates God and really needs our prayer.

2 Timothy 2:24-26
“And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

James White provided little more than his wanting a god to be true as his ‘proof’.

I find it funny how interpretations still get people into trouble…wether it is witnessing a debate and only listening to one side or accepting the claims of an ever altering ancient manuscript cut and pasted together from scattered texts then re-edited over 2 thousand years’ time.

6.5 hours? Now, would you have accepted anything less than a James White victory?

One more thing: A question yet without answer should not default to dogmatic beliefs.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…” like existence of an entity outside of space and time…

you did not listen to the debate (btw, the link does not work) or you could not understand the propositions. that’s ok because many atheist who think they are smart has a junior high IQ only (I am sure you are not one of those, right?). It is typical for atheist to throw one-liner or emotional tantrums and think that they have gotten the other side to shut-up (again, I don’t think you are one of those, right?)

James White is utilizing an argument call, “the transcendental argument.”

Since you are not one of those junior high school IQ atheist and tamper tantrum atheist, could you provide some objections to the Transcendental argument?

Oh, try not to cut and paste, some of us here have read almost everything on it so try to give the sources. Thank you.

James White is not the authoritative voice on whether or not God exists. I think White could have done better in that debate, but so could Barker. I’ve listened to almost all of Barker’s debates and they’re all the same. Same supposed Bible contradictions which he has been corrected on infinitum ad nauseum.

You said “an ever altering ancient manuscript cut and pasted together from scattered texts then re-edited over 2 thousand years’ time”
This is a completely unsubstantiated claim and very easily refuted. Instead of offering a rebuttal, I would love to see how you account for such proposterous claims. Mind you that Dr. White is an expert in this particular field. Its too bad that Barker had to spew out so many supposed contradictions that White could not address them all. This is a clever, yet devious and unscholary debate tactic.

Of course I am biased toward Dr. White, especially since I’ve heard and reject all of Barker’s evidence. Besides that, Barker has a long track history of lying. Yes, he is a liar and makes up “evidence” in debates when he is losing. I can easily provide this information.

A well known scientist named Herbert Spencer discovered that all reality that exists in the universe can be contained in 5 categories: time, force, action, space, and matter. That is a logical sequence. Keeping that in mind, listen to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning [time], God [force] created [action] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].

If you reject the Genesis account of creation, you are left with a naturalistic and materialistic outlook on all of life. You must explain everything that happens with your senses. In attempting to do so, you can not escape that your life is nothing more than a by-product, mere cosmic feces, of a supposed explosion that was caused by nothing and yet created everything. Your life ultimately has no meaning. You are no more significant than a head of broccoli. You are merely a conglomeration of atoms banging into each other, just like your computer you are using to type your response. In your heart of heart you know better than this. You know you were created by God. Your conscience attests to this fact, as well as your five senses that allow you to see, touch, smell, taste, and ear the fascinating and wondrous glory of the heavens and the earth which you take for granted every sober hour.

“something coming from nothing” is who’s claim? That I do not claim to know the origins of matter, much less life, does not give you, or anyone else credibility to fall back on a claim such as “god did it”. “God did it” lacks any proof. Saying “The Bible tells me so” tells me you believe before you consider. You would say, “God is real. The Bible tells me so. The Bible is real. God tells me so.” Please tell me you can see the problem with this circular reasoning…

You wrote: “This is a completely unsubstantiated claim and very easily refuted. Instead of offering a rebuttal, I would love to see how you account for such proposterous claims.”

Regardless of my “unsubstantiated claim”, you tell me it is “easily refuted.” Tell me…why don’t you refute it instead of “offering a rebuttal”? THEN you go on to tell me you’d love to “see how (I) account for such proposterous claims.”. That is all an atheists asks of those who believe in the existence of supernatural beings.

As for your transendental argument…its fun saying big words and not understanding them…isn’t it? In the debate over existence of gods, it is up to the inventer of the god to prove their position. It is not up to me to prove you cannot prove your position. I’ll prove to you “There is no god” when you can prove “there are no unicorns”.

1.) “I’m listening to this debate on youtube right now…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3×1lYnIDLu0″

Response: The link does not work. I’m not aware that the debate has already been formatted online. If so, can you please give me the link?

2.) “You witnessed something different than what went down.”

Response: Curious, were you there, or were you listening to a clip that does not exist?

3.) “James White provided little more than his wanting a god to be true as his ‘proof’.”

Response: Please document exactly where James White did this; I want quotes and the minutes where I can here this on the youtube clip you have. Document your charge.

4.) “One more thing: A question yet without answer should not default to dogmatic beliefs.”

Response: Let’s get more precise, instead of scatterbrain shots. What question are you talking about exactly? How do you know there is no answer to whatever this question is? How do you know that your statement, “One more thing: A question yet without answer should not default to dogmatic beliefs”, is true ? Utilizing your own set of principles, answer me without any ‘dogmatic beliefs’ please.

5.) ““Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…” like existence of an entity outside of space and time…”

Response: What would be the extraordinary evidence you require? Let’s lay it on the table, and subject that to scrutiny.

6.) “That I do not claim to know the origins of matter, much less life, does not give you, or anyone else credibility to fall back on a claim such as “god did it”. ”

Response: Your thinking here is seriously convoluted. You “do not claim to know” (or is it really that you ARE CLAIMING something?) the source of origin; Follow me with what I’m saying, I don’t
see anyone asserting any claim here on the basis of what you “do not claim”. Please think before you write, or write clearly or both.

7.) “God did it” lacks any proof.”

Response: What constitute proof? Let’s subject your criteria of evidence to scrutiny, if you are indeed so rational.

Response: Straw-man fallacy. No one here has ushered “The Bible tells me so” here. Quote exactly, and cite who it is that has offered exclusively this line.

9.) “You would say, “God is real. The Bible tells me so. The Bible is real. God tells me so.” Please tell me you can see the problem with this circular reasoning…”

Response: Straw man fallacy. No one offered this here to you, please apologize for the misrepresentation.

10.) “Regardless of my “unsubstantiated claim”, you tell me it is “easily refuted.” Tell me…why don’t you refute it instead of “offering a rebuttal”? THEN you go on to tell me you’d love to “see how (I) account for such proposterous claims.”. That is all an atheists asks of those who believe in the existence of supernatural beings.

Response: Do you have a selective memory or is your thinking really that sloppy? This was your response to EKesto’s response to your assertion that ““an ever altering ancient manuscript cut and pasted together from scattered texts then re-edited over 2 thousand years’ time”. The subject EKesto is interacting with is not about supernatural beings but your unsubstantiated claim in the area of textual criticism, something you know nothing about for your assertion of an altering ancient manuscript that is “re-edited over 2 thousand years’ time”. You are changing the topic! Demonstrate the truth value of your charge that the manuscripts “re-edited over 2 thousand years’ time”

Response: You are commiting the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Since I have talked to Andy many times about this topic, he certaintly does know the transcendental argument. Your charge that he’s saying big words without understanding them is pretty low. You should apologize for this.
Secondly, you have not offer anything in response other than switch the topic to attacking Andy personally of using big words.

A question about the debate…What was Mr. White’s argument in favor of the existence of a xian god? His attacking of Barker’s character DOES NOT support his claims of there being a supernatural being as asserted by the bible.

Also, a lack of belief in a god, does not explain the origin of matter nor the orgin of life. That man cannot say with certainty that matter came from X or that life came about exactly thus, does not mean “god did it” should be the default reply.

Once you prove to me there are no unicorns, I’ll prove to you there are no gods.

I just asked for the argument against the Transcendental Argument. Do you know or not but at this point it doesnt matter anymore. We can help you but there are more than just helping here….

ok, why don’t we do this,

let us set up an appointment for a debate. which state are you in? we can set up one easily in Los Angeles. we will take care of all the necessary cost in Los Angeles. All you have to do is to get here and we will take care of the rest.

this is what I don’t want, discussing with someone who is anonymous. let’s set up a debate where we can discuss all the points you just raised.

Andy is right. Let’s set up an appointment of the debate.
I am suspicious whether Ronnie even heard the debate, as the debate audio is not even out yet.
I can see Ronnie going another round of assertions, but until you deal with what I have already responded and questions towards you, any further tangent comment will be deleted so as to focus your attention on what’s already on the table.

When we meet we should indeed see Ronnie deal with the 11 problems and questions I laid out.

“Forgive me” for my misposting that link. And thank you for judging me on my honesty about it. Thank you for all your assumptions and questions. I wonder though…how is your asking me questions come close to supporting your claim of supernatural beings? I cannot tell you how to support your claim of supernatural beings. You should know this by now.

I cannot tell you how many flacid debate offers I’ve heard from those who believe in things unproven. It is not my interest expose myself as Dan Barker has so bravely done. You’ve read the posts attacking his character. You’ve read the angry responses for his not buying the position of your religion. I do not wish to invite airplanes into my towers.

I will take back my unfair prick concerning the ‘Transcendental Argument. My bad. I will not go without pointing out though, that none of my questions have been attended to either. Remember, it is not I who is making a claim. It is you who claims the existence of something. I merely reject your claim.

And what of the circular reasoning? Are you telling me you would not agree with the statement that the bible is the word of god? Is the bible not where one will read of the life of Jesus Christ? Is it not the bible that makes the claim that god is the creator of everything? And is it not true that the bible is true only because the bible tells you so? And in the same respect, how is the bible any more relevant than the Koran or the Torah? What makes them incorrect?

We can be honest with ourselves here that THIS is not a debate. This is me infringing on your views. This is my “not buying your claim” meeting up with your “not accepting my disbelief in what you find to be true”…even though you find it hard to express why it is you believe what you do.

We are more alike than you may like to think. Each of you are atheistic along with me in the belief in the Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, and Roman gods. Right? Now, hold on to your shorts, I just go one god further. It is easy for you to see how all those gods do not exist. But, not so easy for you to see that your god…is just as real as theirs.

Oh, and one more thing…I’ve exposed myself to much in the way of “evidence for god”. I’ve heard, what sounds like to me, drivel as support. That is my view. One of many. The reason I do so, is because I want to understand. I’m interested in how people think and believe what they do.

I came across this the other day and thought, if you’re up for it, you may find it interesting. It really will come into play in the not so distant future.

Really, you should check this out. NOT because I think it will change your mind. Rather, because it is something you’ve not heard before.

This is your second and final warning: Stop going off tangents and deal with the problems and questions I raised already, if you want a meaningful and rational discourse.

For your sake, I will spare your toil of having to respond to so many problem raised against your continious assertions by limiting it to a list of thirty-one that you have to respond to.

In response to your may 6th, 2009 7AM comment,

12.) ““Forgive me” for my misposting that link. And thank you for judging me on my honesty about it.”

Response: No one said you lied, perhaps it’s your own conscience convicting you about something we don’t know about. You might have lied or you might have been mistaken, which is why I ask you for the link. It was clear at the outset that you couldn’t have listen to the whole debate as the full audio was RELEASED after your comments. So you might have been honestly mistaken, or you might have lied, either way the link didn’t work.

13.) “Thank you for all your assumptions and questions. I wonder though…how is your asking me questions come close to supporting your claim of supernatural beings?”

Response: You’re welcome. Remember, you came to this blog, and you brought up those objections, all I did was analyzed them carefully. Asking questions like I have is a rational step toward clearing the irrational roadblocks you set up against the faith.

14.) “I cannot tell you how to support your claim of supernatural beings. You should know this by now.”

Response: I’m not so much asking you to tell me how I support my claim, so much as I stated already in question 5, “What would be the extraordinary evidence you require? Let’s lay it on the table, and subject that to scrutiny.” Did you even understand what I was asking for? I even asked in question 7 again the same thing, so you didn’t miss it: “What constitute proof? Let’s subject your criteria of evidence to scrutiny, if you are indeed so rational.”
At the way things look, you might not have ever been qualified to participate in trial as a juror before, since the beginning of a trial the criteria and specific requirement of evidence is discussed BEFORE both sides present their case. It is a rational demand I am asking of you, and one which need to be pressed to see if it is cogent and coherent.

15.) “I cannot tell you how many flacid debate offers I’ve heard from those who believe in things unproven.”

Response: Oh, such as which other debates you have heard?

16.) “It is not my interest expose myself as Dan Barker has so bravely done. ”

Response: Okay, but you are your own worst enemy, as you made expose your folly here already.

17.) “You’ve read the posts attacking his character.”

Response: Which posts attacking his character? Who? Were they out of line and relevant to the discussion? Again, document it with quote and proper citation.

18.) “You’ve read the angry responses for his not buying the position of your religion.”

Response: Who’s angry? Quote and properly cite please, of someone angry at Barker “for not buying the position of your religion”.

19.) “I do not wish to invite airplanes into my towers.”

Response: Neither do I, that’s a low blow and you ought to be ashame of yourself for this straw man fallacy. No one here is going to do this.

21.) “I will not go without pointing out though, that none of my questions have been attended to either.”

I’ve offered a point by point response. See comment 14 as well, concerning the preliminary issue that needs to be resolved for some of your questions.

22.) “Remember, it is not I who is making a claim. It is you who claims the existence of something. I merely reject your claim.”

Response: First, for someone who keep using the word ‘claim’, do you even know what a claim is? Let’s see if you can define it. Secondly, you are making claims, and I have questioned or rejected the claims you set forth. I am responding to your claims in the problem I listed: #2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18. For instance, you made the claim that there is “an ever altering ancient manuscript cut and pasted together from scattered texts then re-edited over 2 thousand years’ time”

23.) “And what of the circular reasoning?Are you telling me you would not agree with the statement that the bible is the word of god?”

Response: Again, this is straw man. Document the circular reasoning committed here with quote and proper citation of who’s done it. I even doubt you even know what a true circular reasoning is, tell us, what you mean by circular reasoning?

24.) “Is the bible not where one will read of the life of Jesus Christ?”

Response: Sure, along with other sources.

25.) “Is it not the bible that makes the claim that god is the creator of everything?”

Response: Are you really that ignorant?

26.) “And is it not true that the bible is true only because the bible tells you so?”

Response: I finished the entire Bible and I’m still looking for a verse that says something on the line that “the bible is true ONLY because it says so”. If you think it is true that the Bible teaches its true exclusively because it says so, help me out by documenting it with proper verse citation.

27.) “And in the same respect, how is the bible any more relevant than the Koran or the Torah? What makes them incorrect?”

Response: Your questions are nothing more than shadow boxing. Stop the red herring fallacy of going off tangent, and deal with the problems addressed towards you thus far. No one has said anything about the Koran and Torah. And who says the Torah is incorrect? You are committing the logical fallacy of complex question here.

28.) “We can be honest with ourselves here that THIS is not a debate.”

Response: You are very confused in your semantics. What is a debate, please define debate in the way you are using it here.

29.) “This is me infringing on your views. This is my “not buying your claim” meeting up with your “not accepting my disbelief in what you find to be true”…even though you find it hard to express why it is you believe what you do.”

Response: Who is it that find it hard to express what they believe? Again, see my response #14 about the importance of setting things up by addressing the more elementary manner of what constitute evidence.

30.) “We are more alike than you may like to think. Each of you are atheistic along with me in the belief in the Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, and Roman gods. Right? Now, hold on to your shorts, I just go one god further.”

Response: Convoluted thinking, I can not be atheistic since atheistic means “god does not exist” or “lack of a belief in a god”. This is bad semantic game on your part, because a Christian is by definition theistic (believe in the existence of a God) and not athestic (do not believe in the existence of a God).

31.) “It is easy for you to see how all those gods do not exist. But, not so easy for you to see that your god…is just as real as theirs.”

Response: It’s called the law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle.

Ronnie, you said
““something coming from nothing” is who’s claim? That I do not claim to know the origins of matter, much less life, does not give you, or anyone else credibility to fall back on a claim such as “god did it”. “God did it” lacks any proof. Saying “The Bible tells me so” tells me you believe before you consider. You would say, “God is real. The Bible tells me so. The Bible is real. God tells me so.” Please tell me you can see the problem with this circular reasoning…

You completely dodged the allegation. You are a materialist naturalist atheist. You don’t have a CHOICE but to believe that all of time, space, matter, and energy came from nothing. You have two choices: eternal matter or an eternal God. Though I believe the Bible is an excellent source of proof for the existence of God, I never claimed that it was my only proof, nor did I say “because the Bible tells me so.” This is a straw-man. I debate atheists all the time and one thing I notice in my debates is that the atheist never gives a cogent response to my allegation that they must believe that everything came from nothing. What is your theory as to the origins of life and matter? The big bang? Punctuated equillibrium?

The clip provided here is only 25 minutes. The debate was well over 2 hours. Dr. White provided a great example of how complex the process of ADP (adenosine diphospate) converting to ATP (adenosine triphosphate) via aerobic respiration in the mitochondria of the cell is and how crucial this process is to sustaining life. Barker’s response was straw man. He said [paraphrased] “Christians often bring up how complex a snow flake is by looking at its shape, pattern, symmetry, etc…” White responded by saying ADP to ATP is far more complex than a snow flake! Of course Dan can’t answer it.

I am a med student Ronnie. So, I am going to give yet another example of why evolution is scientifically and logically impossible. Take the heart for example. In order for Ronnie’s heart to pump 5 L of blood per minute and maintain systemic perfusion throughout your body, you need electricity. The electrophysiology of the heart is incredibly complex. You have two nodes which “speak” to each other, the sinoatrial (SA) node and atrioventricular (AV) node. The SA node fires an electrical impulse to the AV node. Before the response reaches the AV node, your left and right atrial valves must open up to allow blood to enter the ventricles. The SA node must fire a response to the AV node within miliseconds to allow the ventricles to pump the blood that the atrium just dumped into the ventricles. When the blood reaches the ventricles, your pulmonic and aortic valves must open up almost simultaneously. Blood is sent through the pulmonic valves into the lungs where they exchange CO2 for O2. Blood is also pumped through the pulmonic valve to provide nourishment to every cell in your body. I know, its really complex! But it gets better. Have you ever seen an EKG? You have your PQRST waves. The P wave represents your SA node. If your SA node does NOT fire within 0.12 seconds, then you end up with potentially lethal arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, both of which put the person at very high risk of death. WORSE, if your AV node does not fire within normal parameters (I believe 0.12-0.20) then you end up with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. Then it’s time for EMS to shock your heart! Not to mention you have voltage-gated calcium channels which depolarize your heart by precisely allowing an influx of calcium channels to cause your heart to contract. But once your heart contracts, it needs to retract. This is where potassium ions come in and cause repolarization of the heart. A very, very precise mechanism

I can go on and on. The main point is, if the nodes do not electrically communicate with each other within milliseconds then you have lethal heart rhythms or you have insufficient blood to perfuse systemically throughout the body causing gangrene and ischemia to all of your body tissues and organs—->death.

Another thought about the heart: How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc, develop in the first animal by slow minute steps, and then the animal still survives while the changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10% and then 20% with veins throughout its entire body and brain? How did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins at just the right spots and just the right time? How did the blood enter the system in the first place? The blood could not enter the system in its incomplete state, or else it would spill out of the veins. At what point did the heart start beating?

I already know what your response is going to be. Something to the effect of “just because we don’t know how it works, it doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.” Typical Dan Barker response (which he used in the debate, btw), and most atheists I speak with. The response to that is simple: you will never know and you will never understand or explain how these things happen. The atheist can only be descriptive, not prescriptive. You will never know because it is a mathematical anomaly. As reknown scientist Fred Hoyle once said, its like a hurricane ripping through a junk yard and producing a fully assembled 747…its never going to happen. You will never be able to explain how such complex processes work. Here is another example of why you will never explain these processes without God.

The simplest protein molecule has four hundred linked amino acids in a very distinct order. Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionary scientist, states “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.” This, again, is the simplest protein molecule. Lets pretend the earth is thirty billion years old. Is this enough time to solve the puzzle of the simplest protein molecule? To bring this down to laymen terms, imagine a simple one hundred piece puzzle that has one hundred pieces that need to be arranged in a specific sequence. First, one must imagine how many possible sequences there can be to put this puzzle together. The magical sequence won’t be one, two, three, four, and five, all the way to one hundred (Dutko). Rather, it will be completely out of order. One determines how many possible combinations there are by using a factorial. So, take one hundred times ninety nine, times ninety eight, times ninety seven, all the way down to one. You are going to end up with a really big number. That number is the total number of different combinations available in this simple one hundred piece sequential puzzle. The odds turn out to be ten to the one hundred and fifty eighth power. That’s one with one hundred and fifty eight zeros behind it! To give an idea of how big this number is, there are not that many atoms on this entire planet!

The second law of thermodynamics greatly devastates the theory that more complex life forms evolved over time. Even before you can try to argue for evolution, you have the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter can not be created nor destroyed. So again I make this proposition: Either you have eternal matter or an eternal God.

My absolute greatest proof for the existence of God is my salvation through Jesus Christ. This should not be minimized. Jesus made some radical claims. He claimed that He was the author, sustainer, and finisher of all life and matter, including you Ronnie. He claimed to be God incarnate. He proved these claims by rising again from the grave, conquering death and securing my future resurrection. The claims of Jesus Christ is the only rational worldview that accounts for all of life’s questions. I really hope you don’t take the radical view that Jesus does not exist. I don’t blame you if you do as I believe most atheists MUST do this in order to escape the claims of Jesus Christ which so poignantly answer all of the claims the atheist makes in the first place

I have much more to say (as if I have not said enough), but I’ll let you respond.

SlimJim—I’m still waiting answers. Dodges are not answers. Responding to the question with off topic detours and accusations does not prove your god hypothesis. This is all the response you deserve. You’re a arrogant blow hard.

EKesto—I do not agree that the only “choice” is “something from nothing”. “Eternal Matter”…that is the only choice you see outside of your god box. Could not matter have always existed? You would claim your god has…but, we know matter is real…it can even be defined…as opposed to your god. Unless you’d like to define “god” for all of us. Like many, I can admit the origins of life and matter are unknown. No reason to invent ways “it could have happened” based on ancient texts predating modern science.

As for complexity…the mere fact that we’re here, on this planet, living and breathing, means ONLY that we’re here, on this planet, living and breathing. NOTHING of those facts, even its improbability, supports a god. We’re here…that is fact. HOW we got here is not yet known. Some claim to know it was a creator. Some of them claim to know the creator. Some of them can’t even define their creator. Hmmmm….

As for your medical knowledge…bravo. But inserting god into the gaps where wonder exceeds knowledge…is juvenile.

You may be a med student…but your biology is lacking. Read up on evolution. Many people understand evolution and still have gods. No need to be selectively ignorant here.

Oh, and you guessed my response…kind of. But, yes. You remember the church killed to keep “the earth goes ’round the sun” quite. Science eventually convinced the church of this Fact. We do make things up, as humans, when we do not know the answer. It is a fact. And, as a man of science, you should be ashamed to believe that we will not continue to gain knowledge as a species. Shame on you.

I’ve never seen a plane reassembled by a hurricane. But I have seen science explain away demons. Remember people way back when used to think demons caused headaches. Now, we know better.

Again, complexity does not equal: creator. It equals: more to study and learn about our world.

Your thermodynamics argument does not mention “closed systems”. Back to the library for you.

The laws of physics of the very large are not the same for the very small.

The risen grave bit…not proof. That is in the book, remember. Many differing accounts. One angel, or two? A woman first on the scene, or women. Or was it a man? You both have dogged Barker out for repeating questions…He does this because they’ve not been attended to with honesty.

A jesus is not needed for a full and wonderful life. My last concern is what I am going to do with an eternal life. I’ve got one right here I’m more than happy to make the best of.

SELLING a free debate. You’ll not find Dan Barker selling his debates ANYWHERE. I find this to be another money making scheme by those like James White who deepens his pockets on others’ beliefs. This is disgusting. You find a contract where Dan is making a dime off of this sale and I’ll meet you for your debate. Sick man. What a schister.

They even changed the name of the debate from “Does the God of the Bible Exist” to “”The Triune God of Scripture Lives.”

What a load of “business as usual”.

I have no respect for those using others’ ignorance to further one’s own carreer.

Yes, they’re selling three hours of a debate for roughly 3 dollars. MP3s that someone painstakingly converted and prepared for download and also made available on CDs.

Dr. White is foremost an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, he draws very little salary and, to be quite frank, a Reformed Christian Apologist makes about as much as a school janitor. He isn’t in his job for the money.

“I find this to be another money making scheme by those like James White who deepens his pockets on others’ beliefs. This is disgusting”

Oh yeah… a big money making scheme at $3 a pop. How about actually dealing with the content of the debate, or is that beyond you since you cannot pony up $3 to listen?

M Burke,
Good point, brother. It’s kind of funny, if you read Ronnie’s response. It’s so incoherent, which is symptomatic of his entire ranting here.

Take for instance,

a.) “i would not offer up any of my ‘god’ stamped money to such a cause.”

What is this guy talking about? Who’s talking about Ronnie offering stamped money to ‘god’, when you mentioned about paying money for the MP3 of James White’s debate? Last I checked you were talking about James White, not offering money to Ronnie’s God, who also tells us he’s an atheist.

b.) “your position has had two thousand years to come up with something to wrap it up already…science is slamming the door on your god of the gaps everyday.”

Ronnie makes such broad claim of two thousand years to come up with something, as if really interacted with Christianity’s 2 thousand year’s history, and can’t as you pointed out, find himself “dealing with the content of the debate”.

Ronnie, you said:
“EKesto—I do not agree that the only “choice” is “something from nothing”. “Eternal Matter”…that is the only choice you see outside of your god box. Could not matter have always existed? You would claim your god has…but, we know matter is real…it can even be defined…as opposed to your god. Unless you’d like to define “god” for all of us. Like many, I can admit the origins of life and matter are unknown. No reason to invent ways “it could have happened” based on ancient texts predating modern science.”

You contradicted yourself in one sentence. You said you disagree with eternal matter and then followed up with “could not matter have always exsisted?” Exactly the point I was trying to make! You have to pick one. You rationally, intectually, and logically believe that matter, uncreated, unguided, unaided caused all of the universe by a blind and misdirected force? Seriously Ronnie? Maybe you’d have a case if there wasn’t so much evidence of design. Again, if you saw a skyscraper and someone said to you “there was no builder, it just began to appear on its own over many years.” You KNOW you would IMMEDIATELY reject this. The human body is the most complex “machine” ever observed by man. The odds of the simplest protein molecule forming in the precise pattern needed to maintain function is simply impossible given blind and random processes. Try unassembling a clock and putting it in a box and shaking it for millions of years. Do you really think EVENTUALLY, given enough sequences, that the clock will assemble?

You said:
“As for your medical knowledge…bravo. But inserting god into the gaps where wonder exceeds knowledge…is juvenile.”

You have it backwards. I’m not inserting God into the gaps. I’m inserting God into every aspect of creation and life. Ironically, you are inserting ignorance into the gaps! You say we don’t know how this happened, but God didn’t do it, that’s for sure! Seriously? It’s the evolutionist who constantly and consistently fill in the gaps with ignorance.

You said:
“You may be a med student…but your biology is lacking. Read up on evolution. Many people understand evolution and still have gods. No need to be selectively ignorant here.”

Had to insert your ad hominem and straw man. I expect it from the atheist. I would have you to know Ronnie that I have written a 21 page paper on creation vs evolution. I am familiar with the concept of evolution and that there is ZERO evidence for it =) Worth hanging on to, eh?

You said:
“Oh, and you guessed my response…kind of. But, yes. You remember the church killed to keep “the earth goes ’round the sun” quite. Science eventually convinced the church of this Fact. We do make things up, as humans, when we do not know the answer. It is a fact. And, as a man of science, you should be ashamed to believe that we will not continue to gain knowledge as a species. Shame on you.”

This sounds a lot like what evolutionary scientist and paleontologist at the University of Cambridge said: “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: “It happened.” Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd”

The church killing anyone in suppression is not an attestation to what Christianity is. No where in Jesus’ ministry does He teach us to kill someone if they oppose our beliefs. In fact, out of the lips of Jesus “if your enemy is hungry, give him food. If he is thirsty, give him drink…blessed are you when other revile and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” No true Christian can murder someone and say it was because of their Christian convictions. Yes, you will continue to observe creation, but you will never understand the process. Take birth for example. We’ve had thousands of years to study birth, yet we still can not explain how it happens! How does the smallest and single celled flagellum (sperm) develop into a human being when it fertilizes an egg? This is another scientific anomaly. A human growing in another human forming all 11 body systems with a functioning heart and millions of cells all from a single-cell! Did you know that the circulatory system of the baby is completely independent of the mother? That’s right, the baby does not share any of the mother’s blood! In fact, the baby can have a completely different blood type than the mother. We have NO IDEA how this happens. All we can do is observe it happen. Ronnie, do you understand the mathematical and logical impossibilities that this could happen by random, blind chance? I don’t care if you have a zillion years of evolution. This could not happen unaided and you know this. This is why the majority of doctors are theists. Again, there is ZERO evidence of evolution, yet it is taught dogmatically in schools around the world. Obviously there is an agenda: get God out of here! Your worldview expects children to be taught evolution is true and that we are nothing but animals, but you sit back and scratch your head when our youth are picking up guns and shooting students in schools. If we are nothing but animals then don’t expect people to live as if there is meaning and purpose in life.

Here’s what some evolutionary scientists are saying:

Jeffery Schwartz, Professor of Biological Antropology
“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.”

Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of evolution at Sorbonne University for 30 years and former president of the French Academy of Sciences:

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case….
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.

I can go on and on with quotes. If you would like a copy of my paper I will be more than happy to send it to you.

You said:
“I’ve never seen a plane reassembled by a hurricane. But I have seen science explain away demons. Remember people way back when used to think demons caused headaches. Now, we know better.”

Classic bait-and-switch! What a complete red herring! Does it not bother you that the odds of a 747 being produced through a hurricane is more likely than a single cell forming blindly? A single cell, by the way, has an entire “factory” working 24/7 in a programmed sequence. There are protein creating factories, protein transporters, RNA and DNA transcription and translation which must happen in a very precise order (you probably would not understand, no offense). To create this on paper, plausible; to create this factory on land, plausible. But to attribute this factory, which is more complex than ANY factory in the entire world, to random chance is not implausible, its impossible.

You said:
“The risen grave bit…not proof. That is in the book, remember. Many differing accounts. One angel, or two? A woman first on the scene, or women. Or was it a man? You both have dogged Barker out for repeating questions…He does this because they’ve not been attended to with honesty.”

You objected to Dr. White selling the debate on his site. 1) Who told you that the debate was going to be offered for free? 2) Who do you think pays for Dr. White’s plane ticket, food, and lodging? Dan Barker had a mere 3-4 hour drive by car (assuming he drove) while Dr. White had to fly from Arizona! If you really want to play this game, the debate Dr. Phil Fernandes had with Dan Barker was being sold for $20 on Dan’s site, while Phil offered it for $10. So I guess I win this argument?? Dan Barker has an entire page where he sells his debates and other material right here http://www.ffrf.org/shop/products/#dvds
It was Dr. White’s staff that flew out and recorded and streamed the debate live. Do you think its free to do all of this? Once Dan gets a copy of the debate, you bet he will be selling it and I have no problem with that. What a silly objection. Stay on topic please.

Ronnie,
You are really, really sounding like Dan Barker in your tone and content, along with Your debate method too.

After warning you twice to please stay on topic, along with you to stop asserting things after things, and asked that you articulate your criteria and checklist for what constitute as evidence for theism, I did what I said and place your comments on hold.

Stop going tangent and deal with what is the criteria of evidence you demand upon Christianity.

You said,

32.) “I’m still waiting answers. Dodges are not answers.”

Response: I am not dodging anything. Maybe you don’t understand the rationality of a preliminary delineation on your criteria of what would be “evidence” for Christian theism that must first be addressed before any presentation of evidences. Breaking this down Barney style, I offer you an analogy: Think of us going to court, we are in the pre-trial stage going over what are the rules of ‘legitimate evidence’ that can be employed. This needs to be discussed before the trial and the case of both sides can begin, and you the prosecuting attorney is doing nothing more than screaming “He’s dodging me! He’s dodging me!” and go on to make countless problematic statement. When others respond to your many ranting, you get upset because you don’t want people interacting critically with what you said.

Ridiculous.

33.) “Responding to the question with off topic detours and accusations does not prove your god hypothesis.”

Response: My point by point response of your assertions is not a detour, unless your assertions are a detour.

If in anyway I went off topic from “the question”, it’s to deal with all your detours and accusations that you have taken. When you made your off topic assertions, I did nothing more than exposed them to be either totally irrational (logically fallacious, semantically problematic, so forth) or to question you for further clarity, or both.

No one has ever said that pointing out the 31 and more problems in your comment “proves” God per se.

Yet, what I am doing is totally rational, it is dealing width the irrational roadblocks you set up against Christianity, ones you wish to dish out but can’t take a analytical confrontation of. Don’t dish out what you can’t take back.

34.) “This is all the response you deserve.”

Response: What is “this” that I deserve? A non-answer response?

35.) “You’re a arrogant blow hard.”

Response: Another ad hominem fallacy, where instead of addressing the problems raised, you attack my character.

SLIMJIM, its pretty clear that Ronnie does not have a logical answer to any of the objections raised. He can not give a response to the transcendental argument nor the argument from design. I’ve quoted his own evolutionary scientists as a testimony against the theory of evolution.

However, I don’t think you should place his comments on hold in order that we may further discourse with him. The problem is apparent and is common in most blog-type debates: its hard to stick to one topic when there is no accountability. I’m guilty of this too. I can get off on rabbit trails when I’m making an argument or responding to one.

One issue needs to be brought up and then that issue needs to be thoroughly examined until exhaustion. I’d be curious as to Ronnie’s response on morality, logic, evolution, and the Bible.

“If you really want to play this game, the debate Dr. Phil Fernandes had with Dan Barker was being sold for $20 on Dan’s site, while Phil offered it for $10. So I guess I win this argument?? Dan Barker has an entire page where he sells his debates and other material right here http://www.ffrf.org/shop/products/#dvds
It was Dr. White’s staff that flew out and recorded and streamed the debate live. Do you think its free to do all of this? Once Dan gets a copy of the debate, you bet he will be selling it and I have no problem with that. What a silly objection. Stay on topic please.”

Ronnie,
I hope you have been reading my comments, or read it carefully enough to realize any demand you press on the Christian for ‘proof’ require the need on your part to reveal what exactly is your criteria of ‘evidence’ (put another way, what is it exactly must be fulfilled for you to accept Christianity?).

To get your attention, I put the last three comment of yours on pending, and your last one (which was this morning) was deleted. I don’t know what other ways is left to get your attention.

I’ll try to keep this one short, as any elaboration of what and why has already been stated.

As I said previously, a preliminary delineation on your criteria of what you would find as acceptable “evidence” for Christian theism must first be addressed before any presentation of evidences.

Let me try to restate this another way. No evidence exists in a vacuum. What one accepts as “evidence” or “facts”, is determined by one’s philosophy of facts. It is more fruitful to deal with this meta issue, your philosophy of facts first, as much is dependent on this issue.

I explained why this is important earlier in an analogy that I will rehash: Think of us going to court, we are in the pre-trial stage going over what are the rules of ‘legitimate evidence’ that can be employed. This needs to be discussed before the trial and the case of both sides can begin.

Continuing with that analogy, I have sat in the juror box where a juror’s philosophy of facts is so messed up, it need to be addressed before the trial begin. His criteria of evidence of guilt was spelled out by him as, “If he’s arrested, he must be guilty”. Needless to say, he was removed and was penalized. This incident illustrated to me so powerfully of why asking the one who demands to be persuaded (in the case, the one who made up their mind!) must be pressed to spell out their requirement of evidences. Do we have a similar situation with your criteria of evidence, or not? That is the question!

To use our time most fruitfully, this discussion of your epistemology would avoid unnecessary headaches when the core issue at the end of the day is your standard of evidence.

So spell out your criteria exactly and clearly, and let the scrutiny of whether your demand for what presuade you is robust enough to withstand rational scrutiny.

I am wasting a lot of time giving you evidences of why your science is false. I agree with SLIMJIM that the premilinary questions the he addressed must first be answered. This is at the core of presuppositional apologetics and the transcendental argument. Nonetheless, I am going to respond to your last comment in which I will utterly devastate any argument for evolution that you have raised. I don’t really care to go back and fourth on evidences since 1) there is no evidence for evolution (which I will point out) and 2) You will not be persuaded by evidence. At any rate, here we go:

YOU SAID:
“We’ve had thousands of years to study birth, yet we still can not explain how it happens!”

did you really say this?

Yes, I obviously said this. I just finished a course in obstretics and gynecology. What I mean is that we have had thousands of years to examine human birth and all we’ve been able to do is be descriptive of the facts, not prescriptive. From week 1 through the end of the third trimester we can tell you exactly what we expect the baby to look like, but we can not explain how a single celled flagellum turns into a human being in just 9 months time. This goes against the grain of evolution that claims that the single most simplest life form, the amoeba, took thousands to millions of years to evolve into greater life forms. Ronnie, there is no evidence of this. Just by logical induction you can induce that there must be a higher form of intelligence far greater then man can fathom to create life with such impeccable precison. Unless you really want to attribute this to mere “luck” or “chance,” I suggest you drop this pseduo-science which is compeltely irrational and an afront to logic and intellectual reasoning. It’s comparable to intellectual suicide.

YOU SAID:
As for 21 page paper on creationism vs. evolution goes…how does this give you clout to tout you know evolution? It is quite clear, given the “it so improbable even given billions of years” statement.

Have you read my paper? For all you know its being used in Harvard textbooks as we speak. The billions of years was a hypothetical statement Ronnie. You may have not understood what I was saying. Mathematically speaking, even if you had billions of years of evolution you could not account for the formation of the simplest protein molecule in the necessary sequence to function. I cover this all in my paper Ronnie.

YOU SAID:
“The time is the most complex part of this…for humans did not evolve with that frame of reference. Time, and whole lot longer than 7 days, is what is necessary for evolution.

How do you know time is necessary for evolution Ronnie? This is a complete lie since we have never seen time account for any evolutionary processes! Yes, you’re right, time is a very critical component. One of my favorite Christian apologist once humorously said that the god of atheism is Time. Ask any evolutionist how they account for such complex life forms and they will fill in the gaps with Time (as you just did). It is a cop-out really. They can’t explain how life is so scrupulously and meticulously designed so they fill in the gaps with “time.” “Give it enough time and it could happen!” As if that explains anything! Its the same argument that evolutionist allege against creationist with the “God of the gaps” theory. This is false. I don’t say “because I can’t answer it, God did it.” No, I say God is the author of all of life, matter, space, time, and energy. There is no gap God needs to fill.

YOU SAID:
“You do know we are witnessing evolution today, right? It is not natural, but ask a dog breeder…they’ll tell you all about selecting for traits. Which, incidentally, is evolution minus random mutation. You do know what random mutation is, right?”

It is common for the evolutionist to confuse microevolution and macroevolution, and thus you see them using it synonymously. Let me explain the dog breeder example you gave me. First of all, this is microevolution or better stated as microadaptation. For example, if you take a dog who was bred in tropical climate and take him to Alaska, what do you think is going to happen? His fur will begin to grow thicker and longer to compensate for the climate change. If this does not happen to him, it will happen with his offspring. This is microevolution which is adaptation at the cellular level. What you just did was give an example of microadaptation and attributed it to a more grand-scale form of unsubstantiated evolution known as macroevolution. Now you did this covertly, otherwise your point would have no refernece in this discussion. Macroevolution is going from one form of species to another, something we have never witnessed, yet is crucial for the evolutionist argument. Ask that dog breeder if he expects his dogs to turn into another animal in the future (Time). Yes, I am familiar with mutations and unfortunately for the evolutionists we have NEVER witnessed a mutation which has enhanced or added to the gene code. For example, a cow growing a fifth leg is a mutation. If you examine the leg, you will learn that it has the same DNA, blood, and components of the other legs. That is because the code for a leg is in the gene pool. But what you will also notice is that this mutation is NOT beneficial to this cow. When the wolves come, who do you think will be the first to get eaten? Here is what your evolutionary scientists have to say about mutations. And again, I cover this in my paper.

Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote regarding the theory of evolution: “The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”

This is obviously a key component to evolution, no? Let’s proceed.

Pierre Grasse, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: “Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution [like what you just did Ronnie]. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve….No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

Do you believe that Ronnie? This is one of your boys talking, not mine. Lets proceed.

Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: “It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.”

So much for your random mutation argument. This Harvard biologist is at least capable of observing the “finely balanced systems” which are so contrary to blind mechanisms.

YOU SAID:
“That happens on a scale too minute for some minds to comprehend, so they call it god’s design. What is the purpose of your god for designing Downs Syndrome fetuses? All part of “his” plan? Or mutation?”

It is very common for the atheist to claim God does not exist via emotion. Almost every debate I have ever listened to (including this one with White and Barker), the atheist makes the silly claim of “why all this evil” or “why all this suffering” as if this somehow is an argument against God! You did not just disprove God, you merely set up a straw-man and attacked it. But I will answer your question. Your answer comes from the Christian worldview (God forbid it come from the atheist worldview!). The Bible states that the reason we have backaches, diseases, Down’s syndrome, and worst of all, death, is because of sin. The Apostle Paul wrote “Sin came into the world through one person, and death came through sin. So death spread to everyone, because everyone sinned.” The reason we die is because of sin. This planet is not our final destination. It is not our home and it is certainly not perfect. In Genesis 3, after the fall of man, God cursed the ground and all the earths inhabitants. Since then, men have been inclined to do evil rather than good. Again, this is not an argument against the existence of God. In fact, this is a discussion reserved for Christians among other Christians (an “in house” discussion). The moment the atheist uses the word “evil” he is implying a standard, a ruler, by which we may measure the evilness of an action. Not that you used the word “evil” in your example, but I’m sure you believe there is evil. I know you will quickly say that I can’t use the Bible. That’s okay, I have an argument for that weak form of reasoning (as if the Bible is completely false and can never be quoted).

YOU SAID:
“I understand you both have issue with science deleting your god from human culture. That is fine. I’d be upset to if everything my parents crammed down my throat, or imposed on me at such an impressionable age was a lie. I couldn’t imagine still believing there was a guy flying all over the earth to give kids presents. Remember when you thought, “OH, DUH! That is impossible!” So’s your god. Not only impossible but so transparent as to why man across the globe has invented one or more to explain the unknowns in their own culture.”

Ronnie, I’d really appreciate it if you carefully considered what you are saying before you actually hit the “submit comment” button below. First, I don’t have a problem with science, the evolutionist does. Evolution does NOTHING for the field of science, especially medical science since it is completely unsubstantiated and radically falsifiable. Secondly, my parents crammed nothing down my throat. I came to be a Christian only 4 years ago when God interrupted my life and completely changed my heart. Nobody logically believes Santa, a mere human being, could actually fly to every house on this planet and give gifts in one night. If you carefully study the anatomy of a deer, you will quickly learn that they don’t fly. This is a very silly argument Ronnie and a false dichotomy. You are comparing a mere finite and mortal being with an infinite and immortal being. This is also known as false equivocation and such argumentation takes a major blow at your integrity as a logical thinker.

YOU SAID:
“Again, THIS is not a debate. If you’ll review my initial response, you’ll see nothing of an invite to debate “your assertions” that there is a god. BUT, you continue with this “I’m not answering” thing to satisfy your need to “win an arguement”. I can take that you’ve got god ingrained in your psyche. My only question is: Why?”

The answer is simple. I have God ingrained into my psyche because God exists. You are the one who has to go against the grain and desperately try to eradicate God from the picture by attempting to attribute all of life to random, blind, and unguided processes which is completely unsubstantiated and a complete farce. I believe God exists for a number of reasons
1) The impossibility of the contrary (note I did not say improbability)
2) God sent His Son Jesus Christ who was God in the flesh
3) The Bible states “no man comes to the Father unless God draws Him to Himself.” God supernaturally drew me to Himself in a state where I was not seeking after God, but rather desired a bottle of Hennessy and a one night stand. God radically and quickly converted my heart. In a span of 1 week my life completely took a 180 degree turn which can not be explained outside of the God of the Bible changing my heart.
4) The Bible rightly states in Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Ronnie does not believe in God because he suppresses the truth about God.
5) Morality could not exist apart from God without being a social convention subject to interpretation

I am not limited to these reasons, but these are just some.

YOU SAID:
Aren’t we, as a species, beyond looking for a father figure in the sky and moving on to a unifying belief in man? Religion demonizes all that man is…all of his fallicies and urges and ancestory. Religion is a rejection of fact and worship of faith.

“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”-Twain”

This is such an interesting comment Ronnie. The answer is, no. If we are beyond looking for God then it is only because of our sinful autonomous and rebellious state. I these words most fascinating “moving on to a unifying belief in man.” I find this so interesting because the Bible makes it very clear that man is exceedingly prideful and arrogant desires glory and honor apart from God. The root of all sin is pride Ronnie. As fallen sinful human beings, we want to see nothing more in life than us glorified and praised. Very telling remark and I thank you for saying that. In doing away with God you are left with absurdities and atrocities. I love how the atheist uses the word faith against the Christian. Let me clarify something to you. I have no problem taking certain premises by faith. You and I were not present at the creation of this world so we both exercise faith that it happened according to our presupposed ideologic persuasions. You take by faith that this world has meaning and purpose. You take by faith that this world self-exists as a by product of a bang that happened billions of years ago. You take by faith that life came from non-life, also known as abiogenesis, which has NEVER been observed (which means you have to exercise greater faith to believe it). You take by faith that God does not exist. You take by faith that the reason you are inclined to use logic, reason, be a moral creature, and all of these abstract attributes come from a blind force that happened billions of years ago. It is a fact that the atheist exercises more faith than the theist. Ronnie, please tell me how this universe got here? How did life get here? I’ve utterly shot down and dismantled your random mutation and evolutionary arguments. What are you left with? Faith… =)

YOU SAID:
So, think hard about what you want from me to prove your god is true. Because, I cannot prove your god is not true. I’m sure you’ve heard of proving a negative before. Thus my asking you to prove unicorns.

I don’t expect you to come to the belief that God exists. Ronnie, you know God exists, but you choose to suppress Him. As Charles Spurgeon once stated, those who disbelieve the Bible, follow them home and see what sort of life they live. What he meant was, those who want to live a life apart from God, see the logical implications that disbelief has on their lives. It is no wonder that all of the hospitals and institutions that aid man were done by religious people (mostly Chrsitian). There is not a single hospital built in the name of atheism! Who do you think is feeding the poor around the world? Ever heard of Compassion International? The feed nearly a million people across the world in some of the poorest villages. The theory of evolution states “survial of the fittest” which immediately removes any accountability Ronnie should have for his fellow man. It implies that Ronnie must look out for number 1…himself! The Bible says “count others even more worthy than yourselves. Seek to outdo one another in showing honor.” I have a standard to love my fellow men. By adhering to evolution, you give in to an evil, sadistic, perverted and twisted view of man. But you know you can’t actually live out the implications of Darwinian evolution, otherwise you’d be a monster! Just think about it. If you ACTUALLY believed that you and I were just animals, what is stopping you from killing me or eating my children?

I know what my life was apart from Christ. I was getting drunk several times a week, smoking marijuana, sleeping with numerous girls, getting into bar fights, breaking into cars/homes. You name it. But I would tell you any day of the week that I was a good person since I believe my good actions outweighed my bad. And please, do away with the unicorn and Santa arguments. These are not real arguments and a total waste of our time.

YOU SAID:
“Saying a book, one book, told me so is not a reason to follow a god.”

What if God, in His infinite wisdom, decided the means that He would come into communion with his creation was through this Book? Afterall, this is what the Bible claims and in order to disprove this, you must at least have read it. Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. Those who repent of their sins, trust and obey our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God promises to impute to them the Holy Spirit which resides inside the believer and changes their hearts from a life gravitated toward sin to a life gravitated toward holiness and loving God and man. The Bible is an excellent reason to believe and obey God. This is of course going to sound foolishness to you. That’s because to the natural man, it is foolish. Look at what Paul had to say about this in 1 Corinthians 1 & 2:

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God…But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord…The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

I see you are running away from the main issue, therefore I deleted your first comment you left today, but saved your second.

I had to delete them to get your attention back on track on the first preliminary issue which you have avoided time and time again.

Like a judge running a pre-trial session on the criteria of what makes something an evidence, I have to throw down the hammer to keep you on track.

You said,

36.) “Something that furnishes proof.”

Response: Saying “something that furnishes proof” is not answering the question of what the criteria of proofs are. It’s a tautological fallacy you commit, you are essentially answering my question that something that furnishes proof is something that furnishes proof.

Instead of clashing right away with issues of design, I see this issue of addressing evidences important before you dispute with EKesto about what is design;

What is it exactly that makes you know something is “designed” (what is your criteria of design) in the first place? And how do you know your standard is the case with reality? Obviously, you have a standard of design, which lead you to rule out any thing EKesto has carefully articulated as “not design”. I’m asking you since you are so rational to come here arguing like you have begun, oh wise one who believes in *Reason*, to ALSO justify your criteria.

Let’s see your checklist of what makes something as design. Present me a justification of it too, since your own standards of “reason” press others to justify things, be consistent and justify your epistemology.

But I’m ahead of myself now.

First list your criteria of what you will find to be acceptable evidence (it’s this criteria which is the basis of your rejection of ‘design’ by the way), and we’ll take it the next step from there.

I’m not even going to waste my time with this evidentialism junk. You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can’t make him think. At the heart of this issue is the fact that Ronnie can not give an account for his worldview. Now I already know what Ronnie is going to say, “I don’t have a worldview.” You and I (as well as Ronnie) know that that is just a silly claim. Ronnie is forced to look at science, morality, ethics, religion, etc through the lens of atheism, his worldview. Just as I look at all of those through the lens of Chrsitianity.

Ronnie, at first I did not agree with SLIMJIM deleting your comments until I realized that you are ignoring his accussations against your worldview. I’m going to stop playing evidence with you because the debate is overwhelmingly owned by the Christian. Lets talk epistemology. Coat tailing off SLIMJIM’s last comment, I’d like you to define what it means to have “proof” of something, especially since you reject all of the proof I have layed out for intelligent design.

I think what you are doing is superb, but we know that our friend Ronnie just want to shoot at Christianity no matter what, without considering whether the grounds and basis he is shooting from is even rational.

What I hope Ronnie understands is that his rejection of what you have articulated and marshalled forward did not occur in a vacuum. Again if Ronnie is reading this, evidence don’t exist in a vaccum! It is his philosophy of facts that is ruling out any evidence.

I also find it rather insulting, that after all the legwork you have done citing quotes from evolutionists, your explanations, he just simply never have to do any homework but says go read book on evolution in the comment I deleted this morning! Not even a citation of which work or author, what a rational interaction!

He comes to this blog, starting off attacking your report of the debate even though he didn’t see or hear the whole thing, starts ad hominem personal attacks, talk smack about James White and saying Dan Barker doesn’t sell debates (I still love your expose of that one EKesto!), don’t apologize for his wickedness when he wrong others thus far, goes off saying he doesn’t believe in this and that, but want to have us believe he’s so rational after the show he’s putting on.

my calling you out on your, and EKesto’s flamboyant disregard for scientific fact and blind touting of ungrounded religious zealotry does not deserve silencing….but, yay, i congratulate you on your continuing your church’s/religion’s tradition of silencing criticism for fear of losing a member of your flock to reason.

You lie as well as censor. My post was not even written to you. It was written for the once who was grown up enough to not get all bent out of shape during the discussion. You, I left by the roadside to whine.

My deleted comments addressed your quotes from “evolutionists”. It gave the rest of the quote. Yeah, the rest of it that sheds light on the quote’s context. As you would not accept my extracting bible quotes to make the bible appear in a way that is not so, I do not accept misrepresenting the hard work of dedicated scientists.

YOU derailed our conversation. Your reasons may not be as I assumed…but I would gather no less juvenile.

And to SLIMJIM, xianity is not “the” target. It is irrationality. Like you, I lack a belief in all the gods every other religion claims exists. I, however, also do not believe in your god. This “christianity” is under attack gig is unfounded and wishful thinking to such a death cult…yes a death cult. You worship in order to cheat death and live on in a wonderland you see as much better than the life you’re lucky to be living now.

When you quote an “evolutionist”…make sure you do not leave out any pertinant information. This could be viewed as dishonest. And, I think, THIS is the reason I was deleted before…I wish I would have kept the post saved somewhere. This is not the first time truth has been silenced by a fearful believer…

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships.

—->here it comes—–>

However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence..”

The comment was deleted because it did not answer anything about your criteria of evidence.

Get on with it: spell out your criteria of evidence exactly and clearly.

You have been shown to be irrational already, no one is afraid of anything. Let’s not go tangent any longer.

I’m on my jet in the air ready for the real discussion of your standard of proof, you are still in the sewer of personal attacks, such as your accusation of me lying, speculating motives, psycho-assertion of some kind of fear, etc. None of these things rises up to the level where he should engage the debate at, the level concerning his standard of evidence so we can proceed from there.

The rest of that quote does nothing to substantiate for your world view…yes, I said world view. I explained to you random mutations in layman terms. There are NO positive mutations. A cow has in its genes the code to grow legs. If a fifth leg grows by mutation, how is this beneficial to the animal? Give me just one good and beneficial mutation. Sickle-cell patients not being able to get malaria is NOT a beneficial mutation (in case you wanted to use that one).

I like how you hail one quotation and completely ignore everything else I said about the impossibility of evolution. You’ve done nothing to refute my other points. That really tells me that your position is lacking greatly.

Why do you ignore this quote from Pierre Grass, Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University, Ronnie?

“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve….No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

Listen to me very closely Ronnie: mutations CANNOT and DO NOT generate new genetic information. This is not observed. But you see, your argument is weakened even greater when we regress to the beginning of creation. Before we can talk about mutations, we need to talk about where matter even came from in the first place! This is obviously detrimental to your argument.

But I don’t care to discuss evolution. I have done a thorough internal critique of evolution in my paper (which you refuse to read).

Ronnie, I’m going to have to ignore any refutations to my previous points, I’m sorry. I want to ask you some questions:

1) What is your theory on morality?
2) What is your theory on logic?
3) What is your criteria for “proof” or “evidence?”

Good point. Really, his additional context does nothing to justify his position. I just think it is a shame that Ronnie wouldn’t spell out his criteria. I have to say that I do commend you in pouring out the effort you have displayed in communicating to Ronnie. Keep it up. Like I said before, I hope we can meet one. of these days. It’s truly a blessing to see another Christian understanding the rationale and approach that Veritas Domain adopt, and for the help in explaining to Ronnie why it is we are heading the direction we are in the debate.

=P

Ronnie,

Thought this might be helpful.

37.) “When you quote an “evolutionist”…make sure you do not leave or cut any pertinant information. This could be viewed as dishonest. ”

RESPONSE: In your assessment of EKesto’s citation you feel it can be viewed as dishonest and that he required fine tuning research skills.

I don’t think EKesto did anything wrong in how he quoted his citation, here’s why.

i. When EKesto quoted Dr. Mayr saying, “It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs could be improved by random mutations”, EKesto point was to refute your view of random mutation. EKesto’s method of response to you was to establish that random mutation as you understand it in the evolutionary process DOES NOT carry it’s OWN weight of justification. This should be undisputed, as Ekesto cite this admission by evolutionary experts with the caliber such as this professor from Harvard. From what EKesto did quote, and to this immediate aim of his, EKesto succeeded.

ii. The additional quote you gave for context does not take away the force of EKesto’s point. The quote you provided more fully, “However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence..”, has nothing to do with establishing random mutation improvement of sensory organs as true by its OWN merit. Read it again. Since this is the case, it is unnecessary for EKesto to cite the further context to demonstrate his point that evolutionary experts realize the problem of justifying random mutation improving sensory experience. The quote EKesto cited is SUFFICIENT to prove his point, and the additional quote you gave is UNNECESSARY to be cited for the immediate matter at hand. Nor does it take away the truth of what Ekesto quoted, as my next observation states.

iii. The quote you gave shows very little of how Dr. proves random mutation improving sensory organs, than it does to show what Dr. Mayr thinks of other views, and what he think is the quality of their evidences of the other side (not substantial, in his words).

iv. In other words, what you quoted from Dr. Mayr is not an argument or a line of evidence to prove what you believe in, on the basis of the scientific method per se.

v. This point about evidences comes back full circle to my point about the criteria of evidence. Any scientist and scientific observer would ask what his criteria of evidence is that led him to say the other positions’ evidence are not substantial. Clearly, he has some kind of standard he wishes to be satisfied, but what is it? In the same fashion, that’s what I have been asking you, what is your criteria of evidence for Christianity?

vi. In the same vein as above, criteria of evidences and one’s theory of justification is very important and the heart of the issue in any debate. I was wondering, do you buy how Dr. Mayr’s defends random mutation improving sense organ? In other words, do you adopt his way of thinking, that a belief is warranted simply because contrary view does not carry the abductive force of your view, in addition to the fact that other views lacks evidence? To still put in another way, do you think that the criteria of rationality is satisfied when other alternative views are shown to have less explanatory power and/or other alternative views do not have substantial evidence? I will refrain from going further, and will go on only if this is part of your epistemology as well.

In essence, the philosophy of facts and laws of thought I talk about is crucial. I don’t know how many ways I can illustrate it. Your law of thought and laws of facts are like cookie cutters. The form of your material substance is determine by the form of the cookie cutter. It’s time that instead of just complaining about the cookie’s shape as terrible and off from what the store advertise it will look like, let’s see if there is also something wrong with the cookie cutter to begin with.

how is protection from Sickle-cell NOT a beneficial mutation. do you know that this ‘condition’ is something found in those from a particular area in Africa? No. You did not. You did not know the Black Americans are suseptible to this ‘condition’ because of their ancestory. Because their ancestors who had this mutation survived longer than those who did not and were able to reproduce…transmitting that aspect of their make up onto their offspring. And a bit of pertinant info…Malaria is what the sickled-cell is a protection against. Also relevant to this issue…Man is the only mammal that in the adult stage is not intollerant of mammalian milk. We evolved right along with the ‘ancient cow’ as we favored certain traits of that cow and bred them to provide more and more to us. Original cows did not have utters the size of watermelons until thousands of years of a symbiotic relationship with humans produced two evolved aspects of our physical make up. We did not one day have a cow without large utters and an intollerance to lactose, then the next have a cow with the ability to produce way more than it could handle and man with the ability to all of the sudden tolerate lactose. Just something to think about…but, your research should have taken you down this path already. What did your paper say about these types of relationships?

The fact that you used that quote to make that guy sound as though he didn’t accept his own position was the dishonesty, or ignorance, on your part. That is it.

Your elementary opinion of evolution is your issue. Dinosaurs do not give birth to Chickens. There are no Crocoducks. That is because mutations are NOT legs growing out of a cow’s back. Mutations are copying errors. Mutations are not two fetuses’ heads fusing in the womb. Mutations occur because in making a copy of a copy..errors can occur. And given millenia after millenia, or time, this adds up to evolved organisms.

As for your Grasse quote…why can I only find it on conservative/religious websites? This guy is a joke in the Scientific community. Here’s a quote from him:

Grasse, Pierre-Paul – Evolution of Living Organisms
“Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.”

That Biologists ARE incouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations SCIENTISTS have put forward is why this is is so damned difficult for ACTUAL students of evolutionary theory to find any holes. Any theist can “rationalize” it false because he or she starts with an assumption that all was created by a god. Where is the discipline in that kind of dogmatic “reasoning”? Starting with the god hypothesis is NOT scienitfic. This guy is an apologetic and a fraud. And update your “reasearch” he is no longer chair…but former chair…and of what group? Church funded “science” is NOT science. It is a way of distorting the hard work of actual scientists (of which there are theists who can accept the facts).

You said: Before we can talk about mutations, we need to talk about where matter even came from in the first place! This is obviously detrimental to your argument.

WTF?!??!?? There is nothing to support anyone’s supposed knowledge of the origination of matter. NO ONE KNOWS. Science can admit this is a goal and yet unknown. But the religious mind asserts that this gap in knowledge is a fine place to insert “god” rather than continued search for that knowledge.

1) What is your theory on morality? Morality is cultural. One example. A question: Is it moral to sling cow poop onto your neighbors house? Theoretically every action has a moral or immoral quality…no? I believe you would say yes. I would say “morality” (because you’ve not supplied a definition of the term for me to work with…because we all know this term
‘s meaning is up for debate as well) is situational. And here is an example of that. In certain parts of India, if your neighbor threw cow poop onto your house…you’d thank them. Why? Well because they just provided you with more fuel for your fire, because when that stuff dries you peel it off your house and burn it in your fireplace to cook your food.

Additionally, is lying bad? What if you had to lie to a wife beater telling him you have not seen his wife after she just came to your door begging for you to hide her from him. Situational. I would gather you see morality as black and white. I do not.

2) What is your theory on logic? Logic is one’s tools used to sort through available information in order to make a decision. My logic differs from your logic. I understand the scientific community agrees on evolution due to the fact that evidence and studies offered or performed in the community must stand up to harsh criticism and peer review in order to survive. Bullspit ideas get left to by the wayside…it does not mean, though, that all reasearch and hypothesis are true. It means they are following through and looking to prove their ideas as true. Scientists to not start with the answer…as does the religious person who starts with god and tries to fit the evidence into that small box.

3) What is your criteria for “proof” or “evidence?” Verifiability. Because you, EKesto, do not accept the facts of the Theory of Evolution (and remember, in science a theory is not the hypothesis, but the explanation of all the evidence and its applications in the real world), or do not understand them, which is apparent (not a jab at you, just another fact) does not mean that it is any less true. I am sure you know that the last pope had not quams with evolution. This new pope however, the nazi youth one, he does not accept scientific fact. Bad move. The Dark Ages of relgious rule are coming to an end. The “Nones” is the name given to the fastest and most widespread group in America that does not associate themselves with a religious group. We are up from 8% to 15% in the last decade. The Age of Reason is once upon us.

I hope I’ve satisfied your inquiries. I do wish to emphasize my appreciation for your continued questioning. I will not assert, as is often done to me by theists, that you are searching for the truths of science…all I can do is hope to express my “views” as an individual. I do not speak for any atheists, or any non-atheists…just me. My world view is my own. It is made up of more than my lack of belief in gods. It is made up of my love of freedom and equality and understanding to name a few.

If SLIMJIM finds this post worth deleting, I’ve saved a copy this time. No sweat off my brow.

38.) “My bad, SLIMJIM. YOUR dishonesty is par for you”
Response: I just asked you what was I dishonest about; do you even read and/or just reassert things again?

I’m still waiting for you to outline and justify your criteria of evidence, your philosphy of facts. Dodges are not answers. Responding to the question with off topic detours and accusations is not a hallmark of rationality.

The coherence of your criteria of evidence is the crux of the issue that EKesto or I would like to know. Again, your rejection of Christianity is not done in a vaccuum, you import your epistemology in your rejection of Christianity. But what if your criteria is irrational?

This is why I think such a fundamental beginning point, and an essential preliminary issue for what you call “big boy” conversation, needs to addressed by you on your part.

39.) “I am tiring a little of your aggression”

Response: You came to this blog aggressively against James White. If you want to resort to pointing fingers that someone is aggressive, others could do the same, especially with your emotionally laden pejorative. Aren’t you ‘aggressively’ engaging in the issue yourself? Haven’t you gone aggressively off topic from the original post here about James White and Dan Barker? And what do you mean by “aggressive”? Can we say you are also “aggressively” avoiding what has been pointed out as the problems you heap upon yourself? Furthermore, what is it about being “aggressive” as you define it, that makes you avoid someone who has this characteristic, when critiquing you?

I would accept Christianity if one could offer anything other than “faith” as the reason one is so sure it is true. Attempts to debunk what is known to be true, in most cases science, is not, I repeat, is not proof of your assertion.

Science has no comment on religion. The only reason religion and science cross paths is because the religious take issue with what they see as incompatible ideas. Am I right?

What scientific theory states there is no god? Evolution certainly does not. It only states that man, as well as all other creatures, flora and fauna, came from less complex forms. When a believer in a god is threatened by these facts, he or she attempts to prove wrong what has already been proven to be the best way to explain what we know based on all available evidence.

I will say, again, that it is not my interes to tell you that your god does not exist…I merely state that the reasons you hold to believe in a god do not meet the needs of one looking for proof of something. I think you and I agree that what makes you so darn sure your right is your faith in god. Not your proof of god.

Fair enough?

If not, I’ve always said (not hear yet, i don’t think), that if, when I die, I awake to a pearly gate with a guy infront of me saying “I’m God”…I’ll say, “Forgive me, but what proof of your existence did I have to believe in you. It is not my fault you made me so rational.”. Anyway, something to that effect.

Remember…atheism is not a way of thinking…it is a rejection of the assertion that there is a supernatural aspect to reality.

Sorry I haven’t been active on this. I’m in school right now. I must say, I am fairly disappointed in the exchange of dialogue in here. I really wanted to see Ronnie engage in a presuppositional debate…

Are you kidding me? You must be. The only reason we’re having this discussion is because

YOU
PRESUPPOSE
THERE
IS
A
GOD
AND
GET
ANGRY
AT
SCIENCE
WHEN
IT
FINDS
FACTS
THAT
YOU
CANNOT
COMFORTABLY
PUT
INTO
YOUR
GOD
BOX.

If your god was as you state it to be, you’d not have these issues with understanding the facts of nature.

I am experiencing the dreaded DEAD END when it comes to discussing the issue of the existence of gods with theists. Do you see how I stuck it out and babied you through this? Go back and read the inane responses posted by both you and SLIMJIM. Even while your “reasoning” was bordering intoxicated fanaticiscm, I held fast and tried to address your concerns.

I doubt you will find it in yourselves to admit your defeat here, which was not my intention…again, this is not a debate. Down to the very last word, I took your view points, shredded your unsupported claims, and this is how I’m treated by two outstanding christians.

Shame on you for your selective ignorance. May you enjoy your bliss.

Peace Off.

EKesto and SLIMJIM: I answered your questions. I cannot say I respect your decision to not answer mine.

Ronnie, um, which debate were you referring to? Clearly you were not capable of any responding to anything presuppositionally or scientifically. Science is in the Christian’s court, not yours.

Ronnie, we all have presuppositions. I presuppose God exists and you presuppose He doesn’t. Who wins? The presupposition that is based upon logic, evidence, and intellectual reasoning is probably (I say that facetiously) the presupposition that is correct.

Let me ask you a few questions Ronnie:

1) Can you explain how matter came from nothing?
2) What evidence would convince you that God exists?
3) What is your criteria for evidence?

I have many more questions, but we’ll leave it at that. If you can’t respond without getting nasty (as most atheists tend to do) then please don’t respond at all. I am not here to discuss existential issues with someone who throws emotional outbursts of ill humor. I used to do that Ronnie, and then I became a Christian…

1) Can you explain how matter came from nothing?
2) What evidence would convince you that God exists?
3) What is your criteria for evidence?

Have NOTHING to do with your claim of “there is a god”. My position is one of neutrality until you offer such an outlandish claim. Once you introduce your hypothesis “there is a god”, YOU must offer evidence for such a claim. My views/opinions/knowledge on ANY topic DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR ASSERTION THAT “there is a god”. How does MY VIEW of Matter affect YOUR VIEW? How does MY VIEW of Evidence affect YOUR VIEW? How does MY VIEW of Criteria affect YOUR VIEW?

If I claim there is something you do not believe to be true, then me asking you to answer any number of questions still does not back my claim. You see what you’re doing here is diverting the attention from the fact that you have nothing to stand on in the way of YOUR CLAIM “there is a god”.

This Holier than thou BS your slinging is right on target. I expect it, but am always suprised to see it because believers have “so much evidence”. So much so, my opinions and views are needed in order to support your claims.

As for your previous questions that I so graciously answered…here they are in your own words:

“Ronnie, I’m going to have to ignore any refutations to my previous points, I’m sorry. I want to ask you some questions:

1) What is your theory on morality?
2) What is your theory on logic?
3) What is your criteria for “proof” or “evidence?”

Three questions, that’s it.”

Now, I’ll ask you…AGAIN….to be so kind as to answer your own questions you felt important enough to ask me. If you need some reference to my answers; here they are, reposted:

1) What is your theory on morality? Morality is cultural. One example. A question: Is it moral to sling cow poop onto your neighbors house? Theoretically every action has a moral or immoral quality…no? I believe you would say yes. I would say “morality” (because you’ve not supplied a definition of the term for me to work with…because we all know this term
’s meaning is up for debate as well) is situational. And here is an example of that. In certain parts of India, if your neighbor threw cow poop onto your house…you’d thank them. Why? Well because they just provided you with more fuel for your fire, because when that stuff dries you peel it off your house and burn it in your fireplace to cook your food.

Additionally, is lying bad? What if you had to lie to a wife beater telling him you have not seen his wife after she just came to your door begging for you to hide her from him. Situational. I would gather you see morality as black and white. I do not.

2) What is your theory on logic? Logic is one’s tools used to sort through available information in order to make a decision. My logic differs from your logic. I understand the scientific community agrees on evolution due to the fact that evidence and studies offered or performed in the community must stand up to harsh criticism and peer review in order to survive. Bullspit ideas get left to by the wayside…it does not mean, though, that all reasearch and hypothesis are true. It means they are following through and looking to prove their ideas as true. Scientists to not start with the answer…as does the religious person who starts with god and tries to fit the evidence into that small box.

3) What is your criteria for “proof” or “evidence?” Verifiability. Because you, EKesto, do not accept the facts of the Theory of Evolution (and remember, in science a theory is not the hypothesis, but the explanation of all the evidence and its applications in the real world), or do not understand them, which is apparent (not a jab at you, just another fact) does not mean that it is any less true. I am sure you know that the last pope had not quams with evolution. This new pope however, the nazi youth one, he does not accept scientific fact. Bad move. The Dark Ages of relgious rule are coming to an end. The “Nones” is the name given to the fastest and most widespread group in America that does not associate themselves with a religious group. We are up from 8% to 15% in the last decade. The Age of Reason is once upon us.

When you say science is fact, are you referring to science as a method, all the theories of science, and/or the process of science (i.e. the process hypotheses have to go through in order to become a theory)?

Ronnie, um, which debate were you referring to? AGAIN, NOT A DEBATE. Clearly you were not capable of any responding to anything presuppositionally or scientifically. WTF? Science is in the Christian’s court, not yours. WTF? AGAIN.

Ronnie, we all have presuppositions. I presuppose God exists and you presuppose He doesn’t. WRONG. NO ONE KNOWS OF THE CONCEPTS OF GODS UNTIL TAUGHT THEM. NEITHER ONE OF US KNEW ANYTHING OF THE GOD HYPOTHESIS UNTIL WE WERE EXPOSED TO IT. STATING I PRESUPPOSE THERE IS NO GOD IS OFF BASE TO SAY THE LEAST. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD HYPOTHESIS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADD UP…WHY? NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. —SEE MY LAST POST TO EKESTO FOR MY THOUGHTS ON EVIDENCE. Who wins? AGAIN, NOT A DEBATE. The presupposition THIS WORD MEANS TO “SUPPOSE BEFOREHAND”…ONE DOES NOT SUPPOSE THERE IS A GOD UNTIL ONE IS EXPOSED TO THE GOD HYPOTHESIS. WE BOTH LACKED BELIEF IN GOD PRIOR TO YOUR EXPOSURE TO THE MYTH BEFORE YOUR ACCEPTING OF ITS CLAIMS that is based upon logic, evidence, and intellectual reasoning is probably (I say that facetiously) the presupposition that is correct.

Let me ask you a few questions Ronnie:

1) Can you explain how matter came from nothing? HOW DO YOU KNOW MATTER CAME FROM NOTHING? I’VE NEVER CLAIMED SUCH A THING. DOING SO WOULD PUT ME IN THE SAME POSITION YOU ARE IN…HAVING TO BACK UP MY CLAIM. I DO NOT KNOW, NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE, THE ORIGIN OF MATTER. AND, AGAIN, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THINGS WORK DOES NOT MEAN “GOD DID IT”. IT MEANS, WE SHALL CONTINUE TO SEEK THE TRUTH BY RESEARCHING AND ADDING TO MAN’S BODY OF KNOWLEDGE.
2) What evidence would convince you that God exists? IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN WHAT YOU’VE SETTLED FOR…BTW, WHAT DID YOU CONSIDER EVIDENCE IN YOUR BEING CONVINCED OF A GOD BEING?
3) What is your criteria for evidence? SEE MY RESPONSE TO EKESTO.

I have many more questions, YOU SHOULD, BUT THEY SHOULD ALSO GET DIRECTED BACK TOWARDS YOUR OWN DOGMATIC BELIEFS but we’ll leave it at that. If you can’t respond without getting nasty AGAIN, MY CAPS ARE TO DISTINGUISH OUR RESPONSES (as most atheists tend to do—YOU MISTAKE FRUSTRATION FOR NASTINESS…WHEN THE ATHEIST ARGUES WITH THE THEIST, THE ATHEIST ARGUES THE TOPIC AT HAND AND THE THEIST INVENTS TANGENTS TO LIGHTEN THE LOAD OF BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED TO BACK SUCH CLAIMS OF ALMIGHTY BEINGS) then please don’t respond at all I THANK YOU FOR NOT DELETING ANOTHER POST OF MINE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ‘NASTY’ AT ALL…. I am not here to discuss existential issues with someone who throws emotional outbursts of ill humor NOR AM I, BUT YET I AM DOING IT…RE-READ YOUR POST…IT IS AT THE MINIMUM LACED WITH ‘NASTINESS’. I used to do that Ronnie, and then I became a Christian…THIS IS CHERRY ON WHIP CREAM HERE…YOU’RE A PRINCE.

If I understand your position correctly, it is that shared by Richard Dawkins(assuming because you quote him frequently) that God can’t be disproved but is as likely as Thor or the Great JuJu Bee(sp?) at the bottom of the ocean. Unless you have some kind of super speed bionic mensa mind, you have spent hours reading and responding on this site. If there was a site that said the flying spaghetti monster created the world would you spend this kind of time organizing well thought out responses as you have done here? If not, what has given you the passion to do so here? If the two ideas of these two beings are on equal ground, why the railing and fire inside of you against the existence of THIS God?

It doesn’t take much time to respond to topics of which one is privy. So, no. I’ve not wasted hours.

But, as for “your god” being the focus…well, these guys are not Muslims. They are not Jews. They are Christians. Hence the focus on this one god as opposed to the thousands of other gods in which men believe.

Oddly enough, reading Dawkins’ book The God Delusion was quite refreshing. A lot of it was like reading my views of gods and religion but only done with the voice of a highly respected intellectual. I do not claim to be as smart as Mr. Dawkins, but I agree much with his assessment of the topic.

I spend time on this page because the two with whom I was communicating seemed to want to engage in the conversation. I enjoy discussing religion…in this case, it was the xian god. But, thinking back now, I don’t recall taking to task that specific god. One could read my posts using other religions and gods to replace the xian god I may have referenced and still get my point.

Can you elaborate more on proofs, facts, and science? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE CLAIM “THERE IS A GOD”. AGAIN, MY VIEWS DO NOT AFFECT YOUR ASSERTION.

Is there a difference between proofs and facts? APPARENTLY MANY PEOPLE DO NOT CARE TO REVIEW EITHER WHILE ACCEPTING DOGMA WITH NO QUESTION.

When you say science is fact SCIENCE IS A METHOD OF STUDY…AS IS MATHEMATICS IS A STUDY OF NUMBERS/EQUATIONS, are you referring to science as a method, all the theories of science, and/or the process of science (i.e. the process hypotheses have to go through in order to become a theory)? THEORIES EXPLAIN THE FACTS. HYPOTHESIS DON’T DRIVE THE STUDY. PEER REVIEW.

What makes a scientific theory a fact? AGAIN, THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE FACTS. IT TELLS US WHAT ALL THE DATA MEANS.

What makes the scientifice method a fact? THE METHOD IS NOT A FACT. THE METHOD IS HOW WE COME TO FIND THE FACS.

What makes the scientifice process as defined above a fact?” SCIENTIFIC PROCESS INVITES CRITICISM AND WEEDS OUT B.S.

Tthanks for answering the questions. Lol- I know you already said the caps are to distinguish your answers but it sure hard to ignore that it’s in caps. (I got used to it after writing my comment though).

In regards to your question, the reason we ask you questions about your view is because your view competes with our views. When you assert we have no proof to stand on, the issue of debate cannot be about the proof because you already rejected it! Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making that assertion in the first place! Thus, the discussion becomes one of what constitutes proof.

Thank you for elaborating more on your definition of science, fact, and theory.

Let me ask you theses follow on questions based on your answers:

I’m assuming when you said, “APPARENTLY MANY PEOPLE DO NOT CARE TO REVIEW EITHER WHILE ACCEPTING DOGMA WITH NO QUESTION.” you are answering that there is a difference between facts and proofs?

If that’s the case, in your response to EKesto’s 3rd question, “… you do not accept the facts of the Theory of Evolution” are you saying EKesto rejects the theory and the facts themselves, or did you really mean proof?

Does criticism and peer review (pulling out the weeds) always produce facts, every time? How can you be sure it produces facts every time? Does this process of criticism and peer review ever end?

I know more questions- please bear with me as I’m trying to clarify your position to avoid putting words in your mouth, wasting your time reading it and my time writing it.

When you say comprehend the theory of evolution do you mean understand it or accept it? I think those are two different things. Hence why I’m asking question upon question haha. Sorry man but thanks for being a good sport. It’ll all become clear soon- I hope. That or SLIMJIM will finish his finals and come rescue me. :D

There is no reason to believe the theory of evolution. It is completely unsubstantiated and has no merit. Most evolutionists don’t realize that when they use the word “evolution,” that the term implies six different sub-categories: stellar, chemical, organic, cosmic, macroevolution, and microevolution. Of the six, only microevolution has ever been observed. There is absolutely no reason for anyone who knows anything about evolution to accept any of the other 5 forms of evolution.

In fact, microevolution is not even evolution. Its adaptation at the cellular level. Nobody rejects this and we’ve talked about this.

I never responded to your malaria-sickle cell comment, but its funny because I warned you about bringing up that argument. I knew you’d use that arugment because evolutionists are greatly lacking in beneficial genetic mutations so they regress to this classic example. The response is simple: claiming that not getting sickle-cell after being exposed to malaria is like saying you can’t get athlete’s foot if your foot is amputated! Its beneficial only if you don’t have a foot. Likewise, malaria is a serious medical condition and has no benefits in and of its own rite. Sickle-cell being incompatible with malaria has to do with microadaptionary responses. It has nothing to do with evolution and does nothing to further a “God does not exist” hypothesis.

I’ve already critiqued evolution. I gave you the example of the incredible complexities of the human heart, describing it as vividly as I could, and the impossibility of it forming completely unguided and unaided. It looks almost as if there were a blueprint to its design….

You’ve consistently refused to read my paper on evolution. Evolution is a lie and just another excuse to reject God. In fact, the Bible describes atheism is not a lack of belief in God, but an outright hatred of the God who does exist.

Its foolishness to believe that life came from nonlife! Abiogenesis is not science and has never been observed or proven.

You consistently make the accusation that Christians only believe because of faith. First of all this is false for I believe that God clothes faith with reason, but let’s examine this. Are you really going to assert that atheism does not embrace things on faith?? Seriously Ronnie? Matter coming from non-matter!? This is highly illogical and wishful thinking at best. Abiogenesis? A bang creating all things without a banger? Where is proof for abiogenesis? Big bang? Heck, matter coming from non-matter? These are foundational to your ideology and yet you can not substantitate for any of it, thus, your ideology fails. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

Stephen Jay Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, considered a modern day guru of Darwinian evolution and militant anticreationist, disagrees with neo-Darwinian evolution and very often critiques it. He flat out admits there is a complete absence of intermediary fossils in the fossil record. Ronnie, you do realize that there should literally be billions upon billions of intermediary fossils for evolution to be true, don’t you? Yet, there is a whopping zero!

If you’ve ever heard of the irreducible complexity argument then you’d understand that complex life forms can not have its complexity in life reduced and still function.
Dr. Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry wrote a book entitled Darwin’s Black Box. Dr. Behe is not a Christian, but he disagrees completely with the idea of evolution. Dr. Behe gives the common mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity. In a basic mousetrap, you have five basic components: the wooden base, the snap bar, the spring, stabilizing bar, and the triggering mechanism where the bait lies. These five pieces on the mousetrap are essential for it to function. Which one of these pieces could you remove and still have a functioning mousetrap? The fact is none of them could be removed. Evolution teaches that living organisms, similar to the mousetrap, gradually moved up to those five parts in a period of time. So, first would come the base, then the snap bar would evolve, then over time, all of the rest of the pieces would evolve. The problem is you wouldn’t have a mousetrap unless all of the pieces were there. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Again, Charles Darwin observed this problem and admitted, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Dr. Behe, and many other biochemists, has shown irreducible complexities existing in all kinds of living organisms. For example, the flagellum, blood clotting, and countless biological systems have now been found that are irreducibly complex. Dr. Behe goes on to say:

“In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no noble prize winner, no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion.”

So, irreducible complexity really makes the idea of evolution scientifically impossible and points out the logical fallacies in this pseduo-science.

Ronnie, the greatest evidence for the existence of God is not the impossibility of the contrary (which I find highly plausible to begin with), but the ministry of Jesus Christ and His claim that He was God in the flesh and the promise He offers to those who would repent, believe, and obey Him. Christ meets us when we are at our lowest, not when we exalt ourselves above Him.

“Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will findrest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

A ‘”God does not exist’ hypothesis.” would be a presuppositional approach. I’ve already told you, EKesto, I do not approach your view as being true. YOU see this as true FIRST, this is why biology is so difficult for you.

AGAIN, we both had the same knowledge of gods undtil a certain age…then, you, were indoctrinated, made to belief in the existence of a god. Now, it is YOU who accepts FIRST your dogma before evalutating the facts and the theories that explain them. Starting with an answer first is not the way to learn.

You said: “In fact, the Bible describes atheism is not a lack of belief in God, but an outright hatred of the God who does exist. ”

I’ll put this down as Exhibit 20000000009 that the Bible is full of it. Atheism is the rejection of all things supernatural…yes, those things NOT FOUND IN NATURE. Which we are from and a part of…and existing…with no god. NO, not a hatred of a being we reject, rather a suspension of belief for something unworthy based on the lack of evidence and proof.

That is like a kid saying “I don’t believe in Santa. But I hate him for not giving me a present.” That is not my position. My position is, “Those kids over there loving Santa because he gives them presents, well, I think those kids are buying too much into this Santa stuff without having taking a look at the pudding…for in it lies, or does not lie, the proof.”

EKesto, I’m tired of your arguments. This one is particularly tiresome:

“Are you really going to assert that atheism does not embrace things on faith?? Seriously Ronnie? Matter coming from non-matter!?”

What of my “belief” says this? My lack of belief in your assertion of how life came from non-life (or, man made from a god who came from what?). I’m able to, as a rational being, state, “I don’t know where life came from. And, anyone who claims to know this MUST have proof of this or have dogma.”

“Ronnie, the greatest evidence for the existence of God is not the impossibility of the contrary (which I find highly plausible to begin with), but the ministry of Jesus Christ and His claim that He was God in the flesh and the promise He offers to those who would repent, believe, and obey Him. Christ meets us when we are at our lowest, not when we exalt ourselves above Him.

“Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will findrest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

That says it all, EKesto. You prefer the gobbly-gook over the substance. Farewell, may you find something that makes you happy, even if it doesn’t help you understand the world better.

I’m positive my background in science/biology is stronger than yours. I don’t doubt that for a second given that I have taken many courses in pre-med and med school. So please do away with your “creationist reject science” nonsense.

Two people are walking along the beach and they see a footprint in the ground that looks human. One says “it looks like someone was here” and the other says “no, no, it just appeared on its own.” Who are you going to believe? See Ronnie, even without going into complex biology discussions we can easily come to logical conclusions. Nobody in their right wig would believe that the simplest thing such as a footprint on the beach happened by itself. Yet, when we observe the human body, which is billions of times more complex than anything you could even imagine, the God-haters immediately say “we don’t know! It just happened! Were working on it!” This is unacceptable. You would not say this about footprints in sand, a painting, legos stacked to make a house, or a skyscraper, but with the human body you will? This is so fallacious. Why Ronnie? Why do you not look at a car and say “maybe THIS one was created by chance”? Do you understand what I’m saying here? Evolution is not improbable, its impossible. Its just as possible that I can fly. This is how “extreme” a position I take on the impossibility of evolution. Again, ZERO PROOF, none, zippo, nada, nothing… If you have one, I desperately want to hear it.

I noticed that you tackled NOTHING biological in my last post. You conveniently overlooked the impossibility of the simplest protein chain forming on its own, irreducible complexities, severe lack of transitional fossils, zero evidence of any of the 6 forms of evolution (besides micro), violations in the first and second laws of thermodynamics via the process of big bang, etc. You don’t care to have a real science discussion. See Ronnie, you are greatly religous and you don’t even know it. You will not accept, or you ignore, anything that challenges your presuppositions.

Yes, atheism is a hatred of the God who does exist. In fact, when the Bible calls the atheist a “fool,” it is not engaging in name calling. The word “fool” in Hebrew denotes a “moral foolishness.” The only reason you reject God is because of your immorality, which is a product of your sin. The reason you will never see a government that is not corrupt, child molestation cease, countless wars and murders, etc, is because of sin. Your theory of evolution, which has NO EVIDENCE, solves nothing for human society. In fact, it is YOUR THEORY that has lead to the slaughter of over 100 million in just the 20th century via Marxism, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler alone. Evolution has done more damage to humans than any other religious conviction in the last 2 centuries.

Lets do an overview of your position:
Evolution: zero evidence
Morality: subjective
god: Time
Religion: voraciously zealous
Reason to be an athiest: none
Evidence to be an atheist: none

You will say “there is no evidence to be an atheist. Atheism is a default position that is looking for evidence of God.” Cut the nonsense Ronnie. You hate God and you know it. You know you are not here because of a purposeless blind force that occured billions of years ago. You really want me to believe as you do? That a rock, a banana, and a human all have the same origin? They all came from primordial goo? Seriously? This is how God confounds the intellect of those who claim to have an exalted position on reality, by causing them to believe in complete absurdities which have no credibility whatsoever.

Why did Paul say this in Romans 1:18

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things”

See what happens when people reject God Ronnie? They exchange the glory of God for images, animals, etc. How foolish! Evolution is just another form of what the first century idolaters were doing then.

Besides the fact that there is no good reason to be believe evolution or be an atheist, Jesus Christ still stands as the crux of this discussion and a stumbling block for you. Yes, it is in Him the Bible attributes as the creator of all things, including you Ronnie, and the author and finisher of your life. Hebrews said “if it appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment.” Someday Ronnie your body will be ushered 6 feet under only to be given over as worm food. All of your hatred for God will cease when you become a theist to be judged by God. And according to the passage I quoted, you will have “no excuse.” Many atheists, such as Bertrand Russel, I hear say “if God does exist, I will say there wasn’t enough evidence, God.” It is terribly sad that many atheists in their subconcious hope that this excuse will hold water on Judgment Day.

I don’t have a link to my paper online, but if you email me I will send you a copy. Be aware that I gave this paper to an evolutionist colleague and before he was finished he was a convinced theist. He did not become a Christian, but thats not the point of this paper. So, I have to warn you that your presuppositions/committments will be greatly challenged.

EKestol, can I ask you if your faith in a god rests solely on the back of biology’s mysteries (or, I’d argue…your unwillingness to accept the facts of life, Trudy)?

Because throughout this exchange you’ve offered nil on your support of your claim. You’ve offered much that you think “debunks” the facts, but here again, if you think you’ve debunked one fact, that still does not support your hypothesis…it merely (should) minimize your choice of answers. The problem…you have a default answer you choose to insert into the knowledge gaps you think you are finding. You are skeptical of science, so what do you do? You insert a god, which has less “facts” than does the science you seek to misrepresent.

I’ve not replied in a while due to my growing tired of the dead end thought with you. You seek to tarnish something to make your view look pretty. All you’ve done is reenforce my beliefs that god belief is nothing more than “wanting it to be true”.

For a bit, I thought we were onto a good discussion. But then that bit passed.

Ah yes, the classic ad hominem. This is typically the best way to convince yourself and others that you truly have the upper hand in a debate. You don’t have to actually present facts or evidence, just make it sound as though your opponent is unintelligent.

Ronnie, you are free to believe what you want. But when I walk on a beach and see a sand castle, I am free to believe one of two things: it happened on its own or it was created. You can believe it happened on its own, that’s fine, but just realize how illogical this position is. No scientific theory could back you up. We will attribute everything we see in this world as created by intelligence…except the creation of everything!

As I stated, science is your enemy. You have no intellectual reason to believe any of your evolutionary/atheistic ideas. I didn’t say you can’t believe them, I’m just telling you that it is highly illogical.

You have yet to say anything about the person of Christ and His extraordinary claims. The Christian faith hinges on the resurrection of Christ. Paul said “If Christ is not raised, we are still in our sins and your hope is in vain.” My faith is built upon a resurrected Savior.

With all due respect, I don’t think you’ll be able to answer anything scientific that I’ve laid out as evidenced by the fact that you have not. You have not responded to irreducible complexities, transitional fossils, laws of thermodynamics, etc.

Ronnie, some day you will be dead and stand before God on judgment day. Jesus said “unless a man be born again, he shall not enter the kingdom of God.” This will be your fate outside of Christ. Many atheists have turned Christian. Its not impossible. In fact, outside of Christ, the Bible describes the natural man as “blind…deaf…lame…” and unable to respond to the Gospel unless Christ removes the veil from his eyes and brings up to Truth. Your problem isn’t a lack of evidence, its that you are blind to see, deaf to hear, and your heart is unconverted. Paul said “no man seeks for God, no, not one.” I wasn’t searching for God 4 years ago, instead, as Jesus said, “no man comes to the Father unless God draws him to Himself.”

Your problem will always be Jesus Christ of Nazareth. But its okay, God can still forgive you and wash you anew.

Science deals with the natural world. You claim your god is supernatural. Why do you insist on demonizing the study of nature to support your worship of the supernatural?

Tell me what of your book of god is different from any other book of god. What is different in the bible that is not in the Koran and the Torah? Yes, the resurrection. But you’re going to tell me that these books are bunk…and yours is not. Why is yours not? Because of a resurecction? That story preceeded your Jesus story, in a multitude of cultures. You may want to study world religions. Yours is nothing special. It has in common with all other religions that it does not allow you to see the fallicies in your own religion, just the fallicies in all others. I’m in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination and can see that all of these religions have followers who KNOW theirs is the only one true god.

Your last comment above informed us that you are “in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination”.

I wonder if your special position really lives up to it’s “uniqeness” and it’s hallmark of rationality within your last comment itself.

40.) “damning science DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM” and
“Why do you insist on demonizing the study of nature to support your worship of the supernatural?”

Response: Ekesto was not “damning” science, that’s misrepresenting him and hence a strawman fallacy, especially with his interaction within the sphere of science.

41.) “Science deals with the natural world.”

Response: Seeing philosophers of science have a hard time defining “nature” and the extent of science, I have to ask, what do you mean by “natural”?

42.) “You claim your god is supernatural.”

Response: How do you use your term “supernatural”?

43.) “Tell me what of your book of god is different from any other book of god. What is different in the bible that is not in the Koran and the Torah?”

Response: This coming from someone who tells EKesto that “you may want to study world religions”, is rather ironic. The question about the difference between the Bible and the Torah is not even intelligble. The Torah is part of the Bible, so “you may want to study world religions” so you can have the basic knowledge to ask more intelligent questions from your unique position.

Christianity is also different than Islam because it reveals that one can be right with God not through any deeds, good works, and man’s improvement of himself, but through JESUS CHRIST who died for those who would have faith in Him and His work. The cross is a visible demonstration of the difference between Christianity and other religion: Salvation is accomplished not by the sinner but by the Savior

44.) “What is different in the bible that is not in the Koran and the Torah? Yes, the resurrection. But you’re going to tell me that these books are bunk…and yours is not.”

Response: See problem 43 above. Christians would not say the Torah is “bunk”, because it is part of their books. And you answered your own question, the resurrection in the Bible is not in the Koran.

45.) “Why is yours not? Because of a resurecction? That story preceeded your Jesus story, in a multitude of cultures. You may want to study world religions. Yours is nothing special.”

Response: It’s easy to assert things, it’s another to prove it. =P
Since you are so enlightened with world religon than EKesto, enlighten us with (a) your accurate understanding and knowledge by providing an account of the resurrection story of Christ in the Bible and (b) name the “multitude of cultures” with a resurrection story similar to Jesus with (c) these “preceeding” story.

Then we’ll see if there are any differences.

46.) “It has in common with all other religions that it does not allow you to see the fallicies in your own religion, just the fallicies in all others.”

Response: What fallacies are there in Christianity are you asserting? For a meaningful exchange, Name one fallacy, tell me if it’s a formal and informal logical fallacy!

47.) “I’m in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination and can see that all of these religions have followers who KNOW theirs is the only one true god.

Response: If you are in such a unique position of knowing things, you would realize that other religious followers are aware that adherents of other faiths believe that they claim to KNOW their faith is true. I don’t know what is so unique about your position, I as a Christian even realize this, it doesn’t take a nonreligious person to make that observation. HOw about this position which makes the observation that the religions and the non-religious have followers who thinks they KNOW their position is the truth?

I never damned science. This is a silly and unwarranted assertion. In fact, I uphold science and thoroughly enjoy studying it. Your faith is not contingent upon science. I don’t think you’d admit this, but your faith is contingent upon science. If Richard Dawkins came out tomorrow and said “we have scientific evidence for God,” then you know you would be inclined to believe in God, hence, your religion of atheism is contingent upon science.

I find it so amazing how much faith an atheist has to exercise to be an atheist. It’s absolutely amazing. Everything came from nothing, and here we are! =) You will never find God through your 5 senses. God is not going to be found in a test tube or through a scientific theory. In fact, the Apostle Paul said:
“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what we preach to save those who believe.” You will find and experience God when you repent, trust, and obey the risen Lord Jesus Christ =)

As far as those other religions, I have no problem saying they are false religions. In fact, logically they can’t all be true since they claim their origins from God. Either God is accepting the blood of Christ as taught in Christianity or God is expecting that people reject Christ as God and deny that Jesus ever died on a cross in the first place, as taught by Islam. God is not in Heaven playing musical chairs sitting down to every name called upon him on earth.
In fact, the Apostle Peter said:
“This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
There is only one name under Heaven that we can call upon to be saved, and that’s the Lord Jesus Christ.

When you do an internal critique of all the major religions in the world, they all fail under the scrutiny of logic, history, and fact. Ronnie, if you want to go this route, I’m sure SLIMJIM and I would enjoy showing you why Islam is a false religion, Buddhism is false, etc. Either all are false or one is true. They can’t all be true. And yes, I have studied Islam and many other religions. With all due respect, for you to say I reject the Torah is rather indicative that you have not studied other religions.

But like I said, if Christ did not rise from the dead then my faith is in vain and Christianity falls on its head. I would love to have a debate with you on the resurrection of Christ. I have not yet read N.T. Wright’s book on the resurrection, but it’s over 800 pages! You may not know, but N.T. Wright is one of the leading New Testament scholars of our day. He makes the claim that Christianity could not possible have exploded the way it did apart from a risen Christ. I have one of his books in audio and would be more than happy to send it to you. It’s titled “The Jesus of Myth and History.”

Ronnie, how do you deal with the claims of Jesus? Forget all of the other religions right now, let’s deal with the claims of Christ. He makes some very exclusive and extraordinary claims:
1) Jesus claims to be God in the flesh (as was prophesied by Isaiah more than 900 years ago)
2) Jesus Claims that Heaven and Hell exist (and spoke nearly 5x more on Hell than Heaven)
3) He claims that you, Ronnie, will stand before Him on judgment day and unless you are born again, you will not see Heaven but will suffer eternal torment.

These are just a few claims, but they are very heavy claims. What is your response to Jesus?

Your faith is not contingent upon science. I don’t think you’d admit this, but your faith is contingent upon science. If Richard Dawkins came out tomorrow and said “we have scientific evidence for God,” then you know you would be inclined to believe in God, hence, your religion of atheism is contingent upon science.

—holds no water. It even contradicts itself in the first two sentences. I’ll give that to you as a type-o though. When science proves there is a god…you let me know, ok?

I beg to differ. The work of scientists across the spectrum have enlightened me to nothing more than a greater understanding of the world around me. It has NEVER told me “there is no god”. My position, which is one of a lack of belief in a god, is one I came to at an early age after seeing that people REALLY did believe in gods. I was aware of my surroundings and saw nothing that should convince anybody that there were such entities. So, your assertion, again, is wrong.

Reitterated, I never bought the stories of those who claim there is a god. I appreciate science for its assistance in allowing man to understand the world in which he lives.

You: “I find it so amazing how much faith an atheist has to exercise to be an atheist. ”

You’re admitting with this statement that faith is something ANYONE can have in ANYTHING and it DOESN”T make it TRUE. I love when this argument is thrown out by believers. It reminds me that even you know that faith is a trivial thing.

You: “Everything came from nothing, and here we are! ”

There you go AGAIN. How do you know that what is, hasn’t always been (meaning matter)? I cannot tell you anything about the origin of everything, nor can I tell you it has an origin. I can to use my human brain, evolved to view the world from a very small perspective, and attempt to ponder such things on such a grand scale, but I fail to see why, without evidence, I would worship any of these ideas. I accept them as the best we humans can do at this stage in our collective knowledge base and if at some point there is reason to believe we were “created for a purpose by something ‘devine'” well we’ll fear this creator together.

You: “You will find and experience God when you repent, trust, and obey the risen Lord Jesus Christ =)”

Whose Lord Jesus Christ should I listen to though? Yours? SLIMJIM’s? Ted Haggart’s? Jerry Falwell’s? George Bush’s? The Pope’s? Each of these me have a different Jesus Christ telling him just exactly what he wants to hear. Interpretation of the bible and each man’s experiences in life lead to different internal dialogues that you like to refer to as Jesus. When your Jesus tells you abortion is wrong, and so is murdering another man, another man’s Jesus is telling him to murder an abortion doctor…in his own church. Whose Jesus should I be listening to?

You: “As far as those other religions, I have no problem saying they are false religions”

Religions are real, EKestol. They are all the result of man searching for meaning in life outside of the natural world in which they live. The stories religious people believe as truth, are false.

You: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
There is only one name under Heaven that we can call upon to be saved, and that’s the Lord Jesus Christ. ”

This kind of stuff gets people killed. When one does not believe what another does (with this kind of thinking) it can get ugly…real fast. Look at Ireland…same religion, different sects…constant fighting. Look at Isreal & Palestine…same religion, different sects…constant killing.

You: “I’m sure SLIMJIM and I would enjoy showing you why Islam is a false religion, Buddhism is false, etc. Either all are false or one is true. ”

I’m sure you would enjoy it. Nothing like daming Islam to avoid supporting Christianity. Kind of like you daming the science that says man evolved so that you can have your god. A reminder: You’ve yet to tell me why your god is true.

I’ve not studied many religions. I’d gather that you’ve not studied even 5% of the religions man has dreamed up in humanity’s life-time. Even if you’ve studied and understood the top 10, you’d still have a long way to go to prove all others wrong inorder for yours to look good…but then, you’d be damning others to support your claim without evidence to support it. Am I losing you? Because this is my reason for hanging on in here…I’m waiting for your reasons for belief in your particular brand of god belief…I’m not waiting for your to disprove all other ideas of existence…just give me why anyone should believe yours.

You:”He makes the claim that Christianity could not possible have exploded the way it did apart from a risen Christ.”

I have not read the book either, but can tell you that THE STORY of a risen Christ HAS exploded just as it did. HOW ELSE DO YOU THINK ANYBODY EVER HEARD OF JESUS CHRIST!?!?? Word of mouth, Homie. There is no video. There is only “witnesses”. of a And how many? Less than fingers on my hand. BUT, somebody wrote the story down (decades after) and passed it on. So…no need to read this apologist’s book. The facts add up.

800 pages!??! So. The bible’s got that beat…no? Have you read it? The Bible I mean. I don’t ask to doubt you, but I’ve not met too many believers who’ve ACTUALLY read their book. Yeah, ripping bible quotes from the internet is fun and listening to a guy at the front of a building speak his interpretations is fun and all, but what I do is read up on topics and sort out what smells funny and keep what smells reasoned.

You (with me in CAPS):Ronnie, how do you deal with the claims of Jesus? CORRECTION: THE BIBLE’S CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMS OF A CHARACTER NAMED JESUS Forget all of the other religions right now, let’s deal with the claims of Christ. He makes some very exclusive and extraordinary claims:
1) Jesus claims to be God in the flesh (as was prophesied by Isaiah more than 900 years ago)ISAIAH PROPHESIED A MAN WOULD CLAIM TO BE GOD IN THE FLESH? REALLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW ISAIAH WASN’T TALKING ABOUT DAVID KORESH? FOR A MAN TO ‘PROPHESISE’ IN THE PAST AND A MAN IN THE FUTURE FULFILL IT SEEMS A BIT EASY TO ME. ALL THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE IS FOR JESUS TO BE LITERATE AND READ IT, THEN…FULFILL IT. BESIDES, DIDN’T MARY KNOW HER BABY WAS OF GOD BEFORE JESUS WAS AWARE OF IT?
2) Jesus Claims that Heaven and Hell exist (and spoke nearly 5x more on Hell than Heaven) THESE IDEAS WERE NOT INVENTED BY JESUS. THESE, AS WELL AS VIRGIN BIRTH, RESURECTION, WATER INTO WINE, WALKING ON WATER, BAPTISM BY WATER YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUND IN YOUR STUDY OF OTHER RELIGIONS AS COMMON THEMES. I’M NOT LYING. READ UP ON OSIRUS DIONYSUS (here is a cut and paste just to get you interested: The term Osiris-Dionysus is used by some historians of religionto refer to a group of deities worshipped around the Mediterranean in the centuries prior to the emergence of Jesus. It has been argued that these deities were closely related and shared many characteristics, most notably being male, partly-human, born of virgins, life-death-rebirth deities and other similar characteristics.) Your Jesus is not special. He is recycled.
3) He claims that you, Ronnie, will stand before Him on judgment day and unless you are born again, you will not see Heaven but will suffer eternal torment. I’LL BELIEVE IT SHOULD IT HAPPEN. WITHOUT EVIDENCE I CAN NOT BELIEVE WHAT I CANNOT BELIEVE. AND A GOD, ACCORDING TO MY DEFINITION, WOULD BE MORE UNDERSTANDING TO THE HUMAN CONDITION, AND NOT SO PETTY TO PUNISH ONE FOR WHAT HE/SHE DOES AND DOES NOT BELIEVE.

How’d I do? This one was actually fun to reply to. Let me know when you cook up some evidence FOR your belief.

Response: Maybe I’m offering little, but what I offer essentially demonstrate that what you have to offer is problematic because your content is irrational, with logical fallacies and mistakes.

Ronnie, what I’m doing is no small matter, to subject under the scrutiny of reason the one who claim to be “in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination” and to demonstrate that your position is quite the contrary.

49.) “When are you going to support your claim of the existence of a god?”

Response: When you provide your criteria for the evidence you would accept. You see, you stated earlier to me here that the “reasons you hold to believe in a god do not meet the needs of one looking for proof of something.” Well, with that said, what then exactly are the “needs” you demand for something to be a “proof”?

And for one with no poison of dogma, let’s see if your criteria is rational. I mean, is your criteria coherent and cogent?

Ronnie, you told us that you are uniquely not poisoned with dogma, let’s see if this time with your return back to this discussion if you can provide to us who are less unique, the precise criteria of your evidence.
Please, don’t resort to simple slogan one liner like you gave earlier that the criteria of evidence is “verifiability”. Such a tautological statement! You see, evidence of course is the verifiability of something, that’s somewhat definitional, but that’s not the same as the criteria itself Ronnie!

Also Ronnie,
For the easy reading of those reading your comment, can you perhaps make a clear distinction of your comment from the quotes of others you are responding to?
Perhaps you can type with clear indention and quotation mark and spacing of the two.
Thanks

What? No love…no response? Shoot. Well, seeing that there is not much traffic here anyway, I’m going to post a link that might help the lost venturing to this site…I’ll add that I think both EKestol and SLIMJIM should watch this video. And I would love your thoughts on it.

It is nothing damning your beliefs, don’t worry. Its just a Baloney Detection Kit:

Ronnie, as usual I find your argument highly flawed. I’ve been itching to respond but I have finals all week. I will get to it over the weekend or next week. I’m also getting married in two weeks so if I don’t respond next week it may not be for a few weeks.

Ronnie, I’m disappointed that you posted a Shermer video. Shermer is, well, an idiot. I have a debate with him on archive where he debated a local Christian radio show host, Bob Dutko, on the existence of God. Shermer was put in place. I also have an awesome debate with him and Kent Hovind at the University of Berkely where Shermer received a severe spanking. I actually felt bad for Shermer…

I’m also disappointed that you never sent me your email address in order to obtain a copy of my evolution vs creation paper

EKesto,
Isn’t it interesting that our Friend Ronnie say he’s in a position that is unique and without dogma, but goes on dogmatically to say, “that there is little in the way of evolution that you can teach anyone. That is not a jab…just a fact” when he hasn’t read it yet? Talk about knowing the facts before he even knows of it!

That’s some faith, and yet according to his own rule of rationality there is no room for faith.

My point response is ABOVE your last comment. How careless can you get?

I’ll post it again. For one who has issue when people don’t respond to you, can you respond to the comments to you instead of going tangent (as in saying the site has few visits, or baloney detection kit)?

48.) “Honestly, SLIMJIM…you are offering little here.”

Response: Maybe I’m offering little, but what I offer essentially demonstrate that what you have to offer is problematic because your content is irrational, with logical fallacies and mistakes.

Ronnie, what I’m doing is no small matter, to subject under the scrutiny of reason the one who claim to be “in the unique position to have not been poisoned with dogma and indoctrination” and to demonstrate that your position is quite the contrary.

49.) “When are you going to support your claim of the existence of a god?”

Response: When you provide your criteria for the evidence you would accept. You see, you stated earlier to me here that the “reasons you hold to believe in a god do not meet the needs of one looking for proof of something.” Well, with that said, what then exactly are the “needs” you demand for something to be a “proof”?

And for one with no poison of dogma, let’s see if your criteria is rational. I mean, is your criteria coherent and cogent?

Ronnie, you told us that you are uniquely not poisoned with dogma, let’s see if this time with your return back to this discussion if you can provide to us who are less unique, the precise criteria of your evidence.
Please, don’t resort to simple slogan one liner like you gave earlier that the criteria of evidence is “verifiability”. Such a tautological statement! You see, evidence of course is the verifiability of something, that’s somewhat definitional, but that’s not the same as the criteria itself Ronnie!

YOU:
Please, don’t resort to simple slogan one liner like you gave earlier that the criteria of evidence is “verifiability”. Such a tautological statement! You see, evidence of course is the verifiability of something, that’s somewhat definitional, but that’s not the same as the criteria itself Ronnie!

ME:
Speaking of “definitional”…can you define your god so that I may ponder what it is exactly you cannot offer evidence for?

My criteria stands…You could offer me YOUR reasons for such beliefs in gods. Then we’ll pick at those until you realize it is your wanting it to be true that it all boils down to.

I understand where your gaps in knowledge don’t allow you to believe the evidence of the theory of evolution…why don’t you understand my lack of belief in a god? If you had such an open line of communication to the “head honcho”, why not offer me your reasons for belief? Is it because belief is not a thing one gets reasoned into?

Ekesto
I hope you have a good wedding brother, with your wife. I am appreciative of your comments and your involvement here with Ronnie.

It’s funny how RONNIE leaves for 14 days before he comes back to comment again, yet when you did not comment back in a shorter duration, you aren’t showing the love.

Speaking of Shermer, about five years ago, I was organizing a debate with Robert Bowman and we were looking for an atheist debater, we asked the philosophy department faculty if anyone was interested (there were atheists) and every said no, but one of my professor referred me to Dr. Shermer, and in the end our atheist liason said it was not going to happen because Dr. Shermer require several grand to debate. I can’t help but to think of Ronnie’s silly charge of James White making money, and how Ronnie’s own charge applies more to Barker (as you shown) and Shermer more than anything.

Enjoy your civil union and honeymoon. I look forward to your replies. SLIMJIMs not very generous with his points of view. He does seem to like attacking more than discussing though. Maybe its his nature…I guess it could be the nurture though.

You really don’t even have to reply to me. I’m not hearing much more than recycled appologetics anyway. I guess when your jesus is recycled from previous religions’ stories, what else can one expect. I can’t help but read the previous posts and wonder why it is so hard for believers in a god to provide his/her own reason for believing. To depend on the destruction of conventional scientific wisdom/accepted facts to ensure your support of a belief is a dead in the water approach. Unless, of course, one is preaching to the choir.

Enjoy your civil union and honeymoon. I look forward to your replies. SLIMJIMs not very generous with his points of view. He does seem to like attacking more than discussing though. Maybe its his nature…I guess it could be the nurture though.

You really don’t even have to reply to me. I’m not hearing much more than recycled appologetics anyway. I guess when your jesus is recycled from previous religions’ stories, what else can one expect. I can’t help but read the previous posts and wonder why it is so hard for believers in a god to provide his/her own reason for believing. To depend on the destruction of conventional scientific wisdom/accepted facts to ensure your support of a belief is a dead in the water approach. Unless, of course, one is preaching to the choir.

51.) “i would not offer up any of my ‘god’ stamped money to such a cause.”

Response:So who is talking about you offering stamped money to your ‘god’, when the context was about paying money for the MP3 of James White’s debate? Last I checked Burke were talking about James White’s pay, not you offering money to your God, you who also tell us that you do not believe in God.

52.) “your position has had two thousand years to come up with something to wrap it up already…science is slamming the door on your god of the gaps everyday.”

Response: You makes such broad claim of two thousand years Christianity hasn’t come up with something, as if he really interacted with Christianity’s 2 thousand year’s history, and can’t as Burke pointed out, find himself “dealing with the content of the debate”. Ronnie, you have had two months here and this post has over a hundred comment, and you haven’t yet even offer your epistemology which you apply to the question of God’s existence.

——-
Concerning Ronnie’s comment to me,

53.) “Speaking of “definitional”…can you define your god so that I may ponder what it is exactly you cannot offer evidence for?”

Response: First off, your response here commits the logical fallacy of red herring. You are switches topic. As a reminder Ronnie, and for anyone reading this, this comment above is your ‘response’ to the tautological fallacy I have pointed out you committed earlier. Here is the original quote of mine he was responding to,

“Please, don’t resort to simple slogan one liner like you gave earlier that the criteria of evidence is “verifiability”. Such a tautological statement! You see, evidence of course is the verifiability of something, that’s somewhat definitional, but that’s not the same as the criteria itself Ronnie!”

As a red-herring, I would not choose to go off the rabbit trail, but point you back to the need for you to define the criteria of your evidence in a non-Tautological fashion.

It is rational on my part to do this, as you have failed to interact with any of my criticism of the coherence of your comment, and I see this as another ploy to go tangent on your part yet once again.

Second, in order for you to say here that I “cannot offer evidence for” my God’s existence, you already must have a working definition of God, after all it is nonsensical to discuss whether there is or there is not evidence for something, unless you know what that something is. For you to say to someone there is not evidence of something, requires the pre-requisite you know what that something is already in order for you to talk about the evidence for it. You already know, otherwise why have you been spending all this time commenting here on this blog about, and what have you talking about the whole time?

54.) “My criteria stands…”

Response: How could your criteria stand when you did not offer one? Please offer one and let’s see if it stands. Is your unique position blinding you to note how you have been evading a positive formulation of your epistemology that is not built upon dogma and indoctrination?

55.) “You could offer me YOUR reasons for such beliefs in gods. Then we’ll pick at those until you realize it is your wanting it to be true that it all boils down to.”

Reponse: First off, redherring fallacy yet again, when I demand upon you delinate your criteria of evidence, you switch it aroud. Secondly, somehow in your unique position which is dogma free, you dogmatically assert here your thought that it is my “wanting it to be true” is what “it all boils down to” concerning God. Some might lack your belief that this is the case, so I have to ask, can you offer the evidence of that this is really so in the case of SLIMJIM, instead of pontifying solely on the basis of faith?

Thirdly, remember that no evidence exists in a vacuum. One’s criteria of evidence determine what is “evidence”, remember? Obviously, that’s why I have been inquiring you to provide your criteria of evidence, the checklist of what you think should be required for something to be evidence, according to your unique position for us whom you think have been poison by DOGMA: Ekesto, DIZZY, Burke and myself.

Let’s go back to a previous analogy:Think of us going to court, we are in the pre-trial stage going over what are the rules of ‘legitimate evidence’ that can be employed. This needs to be discussed before the presentation of ‘evidence” during the trial can begin.

Even if you are going to “pick” at my reasoning, it is an important issue to discuss the standard you employ to “pick” at my reasoning.

Fourthly, I find it so appalling that for one who claim that your mind has not been poisioned such as mine or EKesto, you continue to still make very basic error of those you are interacting with here. I mean, you wanted me to prove my “beliefs in gods”, but I don’t believe in multiple gods, that’s not my position. And that fallacy is called a strawman fallacy.

56.) “If you had such an open line of communication to the “head honcho”, why not offer me your reasons for belief?”

See #55.

57.) “I understand where your gaps in knowledge don’t allow you to believe the evidence of the theory of evolution…why don’t you understand my lack of belief in a god?”

Reponse: I don’t understand…I don’t recall expressing my thought on the theory of evolution ITSELF…yet you know my position on evolution enough to say that I have (i) gaps in my knowledge about it and (ii)that I do not to believe in it. Maybe I miss something, but how do you know my stance on evolution? Surely, one such as Ronnie who is not poison with faith is not making assumptions here about SLIMJIM’s belief or lack of belief in evolution itself, can he?

58.) “Is it because belief is not a thing one gets reasoned into?”

Response: I’m very curious, just in case, you don’t mean “thing” here as in a physical object or entity do you? What is it you meant when you say belief is not a “thing”, like what did you mean by “thing”?

——-
Concerning Ronnie’s comment to EKesto,

59.) “I assure you, from what I’ve read of your posts, that there is little in the way of evolution that you can teach anyone. That is not a jab…just a fact.”

Response: Isn’t it interesting that our Friend Ronnie say he’s in a position that is unique and without dogma, but goes on dogmatically to say concerning EKesto’s essay on Evolution, “that there is little in the way of evolution that you can teach anyone. That is not a jab…just a fact” when he hasn’t read it yet? Talk about knowing the facts before he even knows of it!

That’s some faith, and yet according to his own rule of rationality there is no room for faith.

60.) “SLIMJIMs not very generous with his points of view.”

Response: What do you mean by “generous”? I offer up a critique of the rationality of your statements with my time, and I get told I’m not generous? I’ve been quite generous with my time to share you what not ONLY MY POINT OF VIEW but also an appeal to reason of the incoherence of the content of your comment.

61.) “He does seem to like attacking more than discussing though.”

Response: First off, what makes you feel so “attacked”? And what do you defined “ATTACK”? However you use the word ‘attack”, which you attribute that I have been doing, cite exactly where in my comment I have done what you meant by attacking. It is afterall, one thing to assert and another thing to prove. I ensure you those at Veritas Domain do not have computer viral attack ware, so you possibly can’t mean attack in that sense…please, stop with the emotionally loaded terminology.

Secondly, you make a fallacy of a false dichotomy when you make it an either/or comparison of “attack” (whatever that mean, in the semantical range of our english language) and discussion. If by attack you mean that I was analyzing the coherence of your comment, then you have been attempting to do that too with EKesto. I hope you recall that Dizzy and I asked you to properly indent and distinguish your response from citations from EKesto.

Yet, you call it a discussion you are having with Ekesto. In other words, analyzing the coherence of your comment and having a discussion are not mutually exclusive opposites. IN this discussion, I am going to you with your poisonless mind to see if you are coherent.

Thirdly, are you implying that my critique of your content not ethically permissible? I find that ironic, in light of your situational ethics. I like how you refer to an illustration of your situational ethics:

“Is it moral to sling cow poop onto your neighbors house?…In certain parts of India, if your neighbor threw cow poop onto your house…you’d thank them. Why? Well because they just provided you with more fuel for your fire, because when that stuff dries you peel it off your house and burn it in your fireplace to cook your food.”

How can my critique of your blemished reasoning and incoherent statement be a bad thing? Your position is supposedly a well fortified house of reason with no poison of dogma, all I’m doing is slinging your foul reasoning back to its source, that it might be the fuel which cook your food for thought. =)

62.) “He does seem to like attacking more than discussing though. Maybe its his nature…I guess it could be the nurture though.”

Response: Wow, you have belief that the reason why I attack must be my nature or to a lesser possibility where you “guess” it might be how I was nuture. I wonder as one who is not poison with indoctrination, how do you know whether I was nurtured or part of my nature to “attack”?

Response: If the apologetics here by EKesto is “recycled”, then it means it comes from someone before. I’m curious whether you are just saying this by faith with no experience of actual Christian apologetics. FOR anyone who might lack your belief, can you strengthen your claim here by showing WHERE EKesto got his sources earlier from? It’s not recycle if it’s not used before!

But think about how this statement contributes nothing to the discussion. There’s only so many thing new under the sun. This charge also slit your own throat so to speak: I can also come back and say that everything I am hearing from you are recycled atheism rhethorics anyways.

65.) “I guess when your jesus is recycled from previous religions’ stories, what else can one expect. ”

Response: Since you are not poisoned with indoctrination of any kind, prove your claim to show you are not just chanting old atheists indoctrinations.

66.) “. I can’t help but read the previous posts and wonder why it is so hard for believers in a god to provide his/her own reason for believing.”

Response: See #55. . I can’t help but read all the previous posts here and wonder why it is so hard for such an enlightened individual as Ronnie can not provide his criteria of evidence he adopts concerning the existence of God.

67.) “To depend on the destruction of conventional scientific wisdom/accepted facts to ensure your support of a belief is a dead in the water approach.”

Response: You are reciting something that EKesto and I have shown to be false. We are not destroying scientific wisdom.
Secondly, you don’t understand the nature of Science: The progress of science at times called for the the destruction of conventional scientific wisdom/accepted facts to ensure previously mistaken beliefs get corrected. Does that mean Science tommorow is dead in the water? Of course not, how silly. But why do you employ this type of argumentation against Christianity?

68.) “Unless, of course, one is preaching to the choir.”

Response: Am I not interacting with you, an atheist? Why is it Ronnie you have to engage in these rhetorical excess?

Stick to the point, and I’m warning you now, any additional comment not ushering your criteria of evidence is subject to being deleted. You are heaping more problems upon yourself with your rabbit trails. You have been warn, so I don’t expect any whining from one who can lecture someone to be “grown up enough to not get all bent out of shape”.

I would just like to point out one thing that RonnieBevel that is wrong again, not sure if anyone else caught this.

“They even changed the name of the debate from “Does the God of the Bible Exist” to “”The Triune God of Scripture Lives.”

This is a debate they did a few months ago in IL. You really should slow down and read through things before you speak (type).

My algebra teacher is middle school always use to tell me something I think might also help you.

“It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

James White debates atheist Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The debate thesis was “The Triune God of Scripture Lives.” This debate took place at the University of Illinois in Urbana on April 30, 2009